Draft talk:Cleartone Strings

Request for independent review and citation improvements

I am affiliated with Cleartone and have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page. Following the guidance I received, I will not directly edit this draft going forward.

I previously attempted to improve the draft's citations in response to the AfC feedback about referencing. There are independent sources from the Los Angeles Times/Burbank Leader, Guitar Player, Premier Guitar, Guitar World, and Guitar Interactive Magazine, as well as the relevant U.S. patents.

I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could review the draft and help convert the existing source links into proper inline citations where appropriate. I am happy to provide the specific sources and the statements they support here on the talk page. Thank you. ScottS1998 (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments on notability from my talk page

Copying over comments from my talk page relevant to this draft.

ScottS1998 wrote:

Hi Ethmostigmus, thank you for reviewing Draft:Cleartone Strings. I was hoping you could clarify the notability issue before I make further revisions.
A previous reviewer specifically noted that under WP:ORGDEPTH, “coverage of Cleartone's products lend notability to the product, not the company.” Following that feedback, I substantially revised the draft so that its subject is Cleartone Strings as a guitar-string brand/product, rather than Cleartone, Inc. as a company or organization.
The revised draft includes substantial editorial coverage specifically discussing Cleartone Strings. In particular, Guitar Player and Guitar World have published dedicated reviews discussing the strings in detail. These are established independent publications founded in 1967 and 1980 respectively. Guitar Interactive Magazine has also published a detailed review covering Cleartone's electric and acoustic strings.
I also added broader third-party coverage in response to the earlier concern, including a 2022 U.S. Manufacturing Report feature devoted to Cleartone's history and manufacturing operations, Burbank Leader/Los Angeles Times coverage of the Everly string business, a Paste interview documenting Phil Everly's continued involvement in the string company with his son, and 2011 Music Inc. trade-magazine coverage.
Your feedback states that the draft still lacks significant coverage “of the company itself.” Since I specifically reframed the subject following the previous reviewer's guidance so that the article is about Cleartone Strings as the brand/product, could you clarify whether the revised draft is still being evaluated under the organization/company notability criteria, and if so, why?
I would also appreciate clarification as to whether the dedicated Guitar Player, Guitar World, Guitar Interactive Magazine, and U.S. Manufacturing Report articles are considered insufficient because of reliability, independence, or depth of coverage. Understanding which part of the sourcing standard these sources do not satisfy would help me determine what additional sourcing or revisions are actually needed.
Thank you for your time and guidance.

My response (edited for formatting):

Hey there @ScottS19998, thanks for reaching out!
As far as the framing of the draft as an article about a product/brand vs. a company, this is not really an obstacle either way as far as notability is concerned: while we call WP:NCORP the notability guideline for companies and organisations, it is also the standard we use for products, services, and brands (unless better covered by another notability guideline like WP:NFILM or WP:NMUSIC). As the guideline puts it, This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service.
I've gone through each reference in the draft individually, so here's my assessment of each source and whether or not it can be considered to establish notability under WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP:
1. Burbank Leader article: Yes. This is a fairly short local news story, but reliably published and independent, so does contribute to notability.
2. Paste interview: No. Interviews like this can be good sources of information, but typically do not contribute to a topic's notability as they are primary sources. In this case, the interview does not lend notability to the company/article as it is only briefly mentioned once, so does not constitute significant coverage either.
3. Guitar Player review: No. As a review of several Cleartone products, this article provides some useful information, but as the discussion of both the individual products and the company itself are fairly brief, I would not consider this significant coverage. That aside, reviews are also a somewhat contentious topic as far as assessing notability is concerned and may be of dubious independence - see WP:PRODUCTREV.
4. U.S. Manufacturing Report article: No. This article is entirely about Cleartone and is reasonably in-depth, however, U.S. Manufacturing Reports allows businesses to request coverage and runs with the tagline For the manufacturing industry, by the manufacturing industry - this raises concerns about independence, for the purpose of determining notability. While businesses do not have to pay to be featured, as *any* business can request that they be featured (subject to the whims of the editorial team) I wouldn't consider this independent enough to contribute to a company's notability.
5. Patent: No. Patents are primary sources and are not independent, so cannot contribute to notability.
6. Patent: No. As above
7. Premier Guitar article: No. while an excellent source on guitar strings in general (I learned quite a bit reading it!), Cleartone is only mentioned once in passing, so this article does not constitute significant coverage.
8. Music & Arts article: No. Only briefly mentions Cleartone in the context of another brand utilising a proprietary production method developed by Cleartone, so not significant coverage (as I understand it Music & Arts is a company that sells instruments, including guitar strings, so may not be independent either?)
9. Guitar Site press release: No. Press releases are not independent, so cannot contribute to notability - see WP:PRSOURCE.
10. Guitar Interactive Magazine article: No. A short article announcing a partnership with another company - this falls under WP:CORPTRIV, which means it is not considered significant coverage.
11. Music Radar article: No. This is a product announcement and also falls under CORPTRIV.
12. Guitar World article: No. Another product announcement, most of which is copied from another press release.
13. Reverb.com interview: No. As with the Phil Everly interview in Paste mentioned above, this source cannot be considered independent, and Cleartone is only mentioned once in passing.
14. Instagram post: No. Social media posts can almost never be considered to demonstrate the notability of a topic as they are self published sources that rarely provide significant coverage. We do sometimes cite social media posts on Wikipedia under certain circumstances (see WP:ABOUTSELF), but they are not useful for notability purposes.
15. Chevelle website: This is a self-published/primary source and does not contribute to notability.
16. Music Inc. magazine: No. Brief mentions in listicles like this also fall under CORPTRIV.
17. Guitar World review: No. As another fairly brief product review, this does not constitute significant coverage.
18. Guitar Interactive Magazine review: Yes. While product reviews can be contentious as far as notability goes, this review discusses the company/brand broadly (not just a specific product) and in reasonable detail, so I consider it to be significant coverage for notability purposes. I'm not entirely sure about the independence or reliability of the publication, but I'm happy to give it a thumbs up for the purpose of this list.
You have lots of sources, but few that fulfill all of the requirements: significant depth of coverage, independence and publication in a reliable source. You have many sources that can satisfy one or two of those criteria, but only two that I would consider to fulfill all three. Ultimately, I do not see enough coverage to establish the notability of either Cleartone as a product, a brand, or a company - whether you write the article about the products or about the company itself, there are not enough sources here to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.
My recommendation would be to look for more in-depth news coverage (especially coverage from outside music-industry outlets) and for scholarly coverage (maybe there is some coverage of Cleartone in books on the history/construction of guitars?). I hope my source analysis is helpful - I will copy this comment over to the draft talk page so you and my fellow reviewers can easily reference it. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 11:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)