Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Cornish

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bschott (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 27 January 2010 (→‎Pete Cornish). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pete Cornish

Pete Cornish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article may be mroe of an advertisement thatn a bio, since there is nothing bio-worthy in it, and the 'official site' is an online store-like website for the equiptment he makes. Alan - talk 04:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a case of self promotion. A google search indicated that Pete Cornish appears to be on every social network site in the world. WP isn't a social network site. He's not notable and basically advertising his guitars. Szzuk (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: this was changed to a Keep further down. I haven't struck anything out per WP:TALKO Holly25 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to this magazine article he invented the guitar pedalboard, this blog post reproduces a magazine article that says he's noted for producing custom equipment for a raft of top-tier artists, and other links talk at length of his close working relationship with the likes of Brian May and Dave Gilmour. These links might not count as reliable sources, but they're presumably based on them, and if that's the case then he seems very notable. The fact that he's a member of social networking sites has zero relevance. Holly25 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No those links aren't reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source which says he invented the pedal board I will change my vote. Otherwise he's just a salesman. Changed to keep. Szzuk (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pedalboard claim comes from a Guitar Player article, a magazine which has been published since 1967 and is presumably a reliable source as far as guitar-related facts are concerned. The blog post reproduces an article from Guitarist (magazine) which presumably exists in the print edition from 1995. Holly25 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather, he didn't invent anything, he customizes pedals for specific needs. In many cases, people are credited for creating when they simply modified. an example would be the Eddie Van Halen Signature Guitars, He modifies his guitars for his own needs, and was given a line of them sold at major guitar centers, with the claim created by Eddie Van Halen. Perhaps these customized pedals are note-worthy, but I can't find anything to back that up as there are hundreds of engineers who do this same thing (and nowadays, pedals are programmable, the musician does it himself via computer) Alan - talk 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The customized pedals are a separate thing; the "invention" claim relates to the guitar pedalboard, which is a number of separate pedals disassembled and rehoused in a single custom unit. By all indications he was the first person to do this and hence the inventor. Holly25 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was wanting alternate proof that he invented the pedal board. However having looked into the magazine further it seems a worthwhile authority. So i'll change my vote to keep. Szzuk (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, That is kind of my point. I only find bits and peices here and there, and no where can I find that he invented anything, but merely modeified and customized what others created. I can take a two devices others invented, mix them together into something new, doesn't mean I invented it, means I modified/customized them. Musicians do this with guitar pedals on their own all the time. Definatly a tough article to source properly Alan - talk 04:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. Yes its an awkward one. I think we need new authors in this afd to help shed some light. Szzuk (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This link calls him "the inventor of the pedalboard", in the fourth paragraph (when I view it, the text is obscured by an ad which disappears after a few seconds). From Google Books, this book describes his custom systems as part of a transitional movement that would lead to modern multi-effects systems. This book mentions him as one of only two people producing these custom systems for big rock stars before MIDI and multi-effects systems made it affordable for amateurs. And this book, published by Guitar World, says "I can't feel complete in writing about pedalboards without a nod to Pete Cornish, a London-based pedalboard designer who, since the '70s, has worked for such rock royalty as Jimmy Page, David Gilmour, and Brian May. It goes without saying that he is one of the leaders in his field." They all agree that he is an important figure in the development of this technology. Holly25 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, This links appear to be more like blogs than reliable articles. I'm looking for pure documented facts that he actually invented something, not peoples opinions on the matter. I'm not saying the links aren't valid, but if it's all true, there should be better sources to use Alan - talk 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first link is a magazine article, reproduced on the magazine's website. The other links I've just provided are excerpts from printed books, found from a Google Books search. Click on them and you'll see they have nothing to do with blogs. Holly25 (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Another reason for the AFD is simply how the article is written. looks very much like promotion, not biographical at all. (the external links alone.. nuff said) Alan - talk 19:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article quality issues aren't relevant to deletion debates. In the worst case, an article can be reduced to a short stub. You don't need to delete the whole article to fix such problems. Holly25 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK  14:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Peddleboard designer or creator IMO there is sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources, particularly this mention and multiple mentions of him in the various other reliable references from the article to establish his general notability on both sides of the atlantic. Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles notability claim is that Cornish "invented" (or designed if you prefer) the Guitar pedalboard. Now the Pedalboard article was created by a WP:SPA "randombee". The entire GP article is unsourced and reads like a hoax. A GP unit (per the article) is nothing but a "plate" or "wooden board" on which "multiple pedal units" are mounted and connected, often with a combined power supply to eliminate ground loop problems (ie. audio hum). BIG F***ing deal, delete GP too Annette46 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources here are three books and a magazine article, the quality of the Guitar pedalboard article isn't relevant. Holly25 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 3 books do not establish he invented the Guitar Pedalboard. The magazine article is usual trade rag hype. The article's specific claim to notability is for his elaborate and fully custom guitar pedalboard systems. This smacks of advertising to me. The 2nd book reference speaks of Bob Bradshaw doing the same thing on the other side of the Atlantic (many hits for Bradshaw in WP, but no article as yet) as does also the 3rd one. The last ref merely calls Cornish a leader in the field. Is WP going to be a directory for every Blacksmith or Cobbler ? Annette46 (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The three books establish his notability in his field, and the magazine is an established guitar magazine published since 1967, not a "trade rag". The claim in the article is irrelevant because it can be rewritten; the claim to notability in this discussion is backed by reliable sources. The fact that Bob Bradshaw has no article simply means that no-one has written one yet. If a blacksmith or cobbler is cited in the literature as a leader of their field and works closely with famous artists, then yes, they'd probably meet the criteria. It doesn't mean WP becomes a "directory" for all of them. Holly25 (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then I am unsure what his claim to notability is. These guys (Cornish, Bradshaw, David Friedman etc) are "guitar rig" builders for rock bands. A guitar rig is a multi-channel multi-effect audio effects processor, including racks, pedals (not made by them BTW) and pedal racks (virtually obsolete nowadays). Yes all of them have rigged for leading rock stars/groups but thats a techicians job and not evidence of being notable. The concerned notability guideline is WP:CREATIVE, I don't see how he meets it with these 3 and a half sources. Annette46 (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The relevant points at WP:CREATIVE would be, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" and "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". Until Cornish in the 70s, only single effects were available; nowadays, the major manufacturers produce elaborate multieffects systems. Cornish is seen as an important figure because he was developing that technology for major guitarists when it wasn't otherwise commercially available. So he's "regarded as an important figure" for "originating a significant new concept". One of the books is an authorized history of Boss Corporation, the world's biggest manufacturer of such equipment (and a competitor of Cornish, you could say); another is by Matt Bruck, the longtime guitar technician for Eddie van Halen (see [1]), so you couldn't really ask for better sources on his importance within that field. Holly25 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not valid. None of the 3 book sources categorically states Pete Cornish originated and/or invented any new "concept" or "theory" or "technique". I note the weasel phrase commercially available in your comment. It is common knowledge that innovations used by "major" artistes very often originate from minor unknowns. In any case Bob Bradshaw, David Friedman are the verifiably significant rivals / peers of Cornish, we haven't got them acknowledging him (yet) as an important figure. The BOSS Corp reference merely states that Cornish's rigs were separable from the case (a great new concept <rol>). The Bruck reference in effect simply describes him as being a leading pedalboard designer from the '70s <--> semantically quite different from "an important figure". Annette46 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • "It goes without saying that he is one of the leaders in his field" (Bruck) is a clear-cut statement of importance. I can't see how it could be argued otherwise. We can't expect the sources to use the exact same wording as the WP:CREATIVE guidelines, or they'd never apply. The "invention" claim is clearly stated in the magazine article; if you want to contest it, then you'll need to show an equally reliable source saying otherwise. As for the Boss book, you're quoting one sentence out of context; it goes on to say, "This trend was a transitional movement that led into the full-scale use of multiple effects grouped in a rack-mounted system", after giving Cornish as a single example of someone already producing similar technology. Holly25 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It goes without saying that he is one of the leaders in his field" = opinion, not fact. Using that statement to base a fact on is against wikipedia by itself. If used in an article, it would be nothing more than a quote from someone expressing their opinion. Alan - talk 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never represented this as a fact. It's a quote used to back up the relative part of WP:MUSICBIO, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." It is an example of how this person is regarded by people who write books about guitar technology, in this case Eddie van Halen's longtime guitar technician. We're talking about the notability guidelines here, the content of the article isn't what's under discussion. Holly25 (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more solid sources:
    • Brian May's official website: "Mr. Cornish, as many people would know, is a well-known and respected specialist music electronics maker who produced many pieces of equipment for Brian May and Queen during the 1970s and 1980s.", and "This is perfectly understandable due to the fact that Pete Cornish at the time was the leading specialist in UK music electronics, and would have been heavily in demand by many music acts."[2]
    • Lou Reed interviewed for Sound on Sound: "Those are some things built by an English genius named Pete Cornish"[3] and mentioned again in a Pitchfork interview[4]
    • Described as a "stompbox legend" in a Premier Guitar article[5] and a "pedal pioneer" in Make (magazine): [6]
    • A book which turned up in a Google Books search but without a preview[7] talks of "exclusive interviews (with) eight top pedal makers", and by using Amazon's preview of the same book[8] it turns out to have a 3-page interview with Cornish plus a number of other references elsewhere in the text. Holly25 (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
again, nothing factual stating he invented anything, he builds pedals, he modifies pedals, he was one of the earlier people to do so, but no proof anywhere he invented anything or was the first to do so. Your arguements on the article are making me think you have a conflict of interest and are trying to promote him (another wikipedia guidelines nono, but i'm not accusing you of it.. just pointing out that your arguements may be reflecting that) Alan - talk 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These sources weren't presented as support for the "invention" claim, that's found in the magazine article linked earlier. This is secondary coverage in reliable sources, all attesting to his importance within his field. I'll ignore the COI claim because all I'm doing is presenting a large number of secondary sources and using those to argue his notability under the guidelines. Holly25 (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) He did not invent the guitar pedalboard (which in any event is merely a plank on which Pedals "effect processors" are mounted / strapped and wired up - ie. integration). 2) He did not invent guitar effect processors (pedals) or pedalboards - there are earlier claims such as Electro-Harmonix for Hendrix in the 60's. Cornish's so-called importance in his field is that he has rigged for some well known groups since the 1970's and is quite savvy in promoting himself. Secondary coverage of this nature is OK for GNG, not for WP:CREATIVE. He would be important if it can be reliably shown that he created something notable. Most of the fresh sources cited above are clear that he was specialist in the UK making this yet another example of the Anglo-centred bias of WP. Annette46 (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You've just said he passes GNG so i'm not sure why you're bothered about WP:Creative. This'll be no consensus. Szzuk (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I actually said these secondary sources are OK for GNG, but not for WP:CREATIVE. As a person Cornish must pass CREATIVE (applicable for him), if not then he may still be notable under GNG guidelines but that will depend on the context of his notability (which is still unclear/vague).Annette46 (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Do you have a source to back up the claim that he didn't invent that? I've provided a reliable magazine article to say that he did, so unless you can show a reliable source saying that he didn't, or that someone else invented it, that assertion still stands. Your claim about Electro-Harmonix is flat out wrong: they've only ever produced single effects. Perhaps you've been misled by the image at the Electro-Harmonix article: only a few of the single effects in that image are by E-H, they've never produced any kind of multi-effects system. You're also using a strange definition of "pedalboard" which is probably based on its description in the Guitar pedalboard article: amateurs often put together single effects on a board in emulation of the professional pedalboards produced by Cornish et al., which are housed inside a single unit and have custom switching circuitry.
There's also a misunderstanding of WP:CREATIVE: the "invention" claim meets the second bullet point there and hasn't been refuted with a contrary reliable source. The other sources are evidence for the first bullet point there: that the person "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors".
Let's take a look at some of the language used to describe Cornish in these sources: "well-known... respected... the leading specialist... heavily in demand" (Brian May's site); "genius" (Lou Reed); "legend" (Premier Guitar); "pioneer" (Make Magazine); "It goes without saying that he is one of the leaders in his field" (van Halen's guitar technician). This meets the first point at WP:CREATIVE, we have another source which meets the second point (invention). Note that a person only has to meet one of those points: I've produced reliable sources to show that he meets two of them. On top of this, the references already provided, plus the 17 relevant results at a GBooks search ([9]) are evidence for general notability. At this point, any further arguments that he doesn't meet the notability requirements need to address why the provided sources are unreliable (I've pointedly avoided the thousands of hits not regarded as WP:RS), rather than your opinion of what a pedalboard is, whether he invented it, and whether it's important to have done so. Because the relevant sources from his field do make excessive statements of his importance, and simple assertions that he's not contrary to reliable sources are not guideline-based arguments. Holly25 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, nno one needs sources to prove he DIDN'T invent, you need sources proving he DID invent. in short, if he is notable for building and modifying guitar pedals, so are thousands of others who do the same work. And adding the sources to this discussion doesn't help the apge. If you feel it's a notible page, add context and cite the sources on the article. If this guy is that notible, the article can be expanded quite a bit to meet WP:BIO Alan - talk 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the article gets kept, then these sources could certainly be used to expand and better source it. But the decision to keep/delete gets made on the basis of this discussion, not the current state of the article; there's no point putting all that effort into improving the article when all that work might end up deleted within a couple of days. The article can be improved if kept, so its current quality isn't a deletion issue (see WP:RUBBISH). Per the deletion policy, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". I've focused on presenting sources here because that's what decides whether the article stays or goes.
As for the invention matter, I've provided a source for that. If you disagree with that then the only way forward is to either (1) show why that source isn't reliable or (2) find other sources that contradict it so we can compare them. Saying, "I don't accept it, find more sources" doesn't get us anywhere.
And besides the invention claim, what of the other sources? I've put them forward claiming they show he's "regarded as an important figure" in his field, and that all of the sources taken together (including the other books he's referenced in) show that he's generally notable in that he gets repeated, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Even if we ignore the invention claim for a minute, how do you refute the evidence provided by these sources? Holly25 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just read WP:Creative. He passes. Point 1 says The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The sources provided are multiple, non trivial and amply demonstrate this. For simplicity I'll strikethrough my earlier delete comments. Szzuk (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix was using multiple effects since at least 1967. These multi-effects consisted of at least a "sustain" and "fuzz" and often a "wah-wah" (variable comb filter) combined in the same housing. Fuzz boxes (with wah-wah) have been around since at least the early 1960's using germanium transistors / UJTs (when silicon wasn't available) - Robin Trower was using them before/same time as Hendrix - 1967 (album:"A whiter shade of pale"). The Uni-Vibe pedal has been around since 1964 incorporating flanging, chorus and vibrator effects. So this would conclusively rule out Cornish as an inventor or creator of single/multi-effect guitar effect processing units (his claim to fame). The 1 (trade) magazine source for Cornish's claim to inventing the pedal is of course suspect/dubious - and gets little support elsewhere - so failing Claim No.2 for Creative. Now addressing the other claim, No evidence has been provided of his peers widely citing him (in fact he is hardly cited by them at all). No evidence has been provided that his peers or successors regard him as an important figure. None of the citations provided are from his "peers" or "successors", they are in fact in the nature of testimonials from his clients or from trade publications (in which he advertises and hence are not independent sources), Furthermore, I am not from the UK, and dont have an Anglo bias for him. Annette46 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key points of your post are categorically false. I'll try to be brief.
Hendrix wasn't using "multi-effects" in 1967 or any other year, because they weren't invented before his death in 1970. His setup is detailed at [10], based on the testimony of his "electronics guru" Roger Mayer. The single effects used: Dallas Arbiter Fuzz Face, a Vox Wah-wah, and Mayer's own Octavia (famously used in the solo of Purple Haze). These are all single effects units. From 1969, he also used a Univibe which was again a single phase-shifter device: the words "chorus" and "vibrato" are variations of the same basic effect (see [11] for a detailed description, or [12] for a schematic of the Univibe, proving that it's a single circuit and has nothing to do with the integration of separate effects units); I don't know where you got the word "flanger" from because that effect was only invented in 1966 (see Flanging, the Beatles first used it on Revolver) and wasn't available as a separate effects unit until the 1970s. In this last post, you've basically invented a new meaning for "multi-effects" to describe units which everyone else calls single effects units. All secondary sources will regard these as single effects units; none will call them "multi-effects". If you insist I'm wrong, there's a huge fat target for you to attack with reliable sources.
The magazine source is not "suspect/dubious" at all; it's a reliable source unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary rather than just asserting that it's not. It's not a "trade magazine" unless any publication specifically about music production is to be classed as a "trade publication"; in that case, you're dismissing all reliable sources in this field. The use of "trade" in the derogatory sense has a much narrower meaning, see Trade journal.
As for "no evidence of his peers citing him/regard him as an important figure": I've provided these sources in previous posts and I won't waste anyone's time by repeating them. When a famous musician calls him a "genius" or a "leading figure", you dismiss it as a "customer testimonial". When a music magazine describes him as "legendary" or a "pioneer", you dismiss it by stating "he advertises in that magazine", without any proof. When 17 books cite him, you start making up bizarre and unsourced claims about Jimi Hendrix which are quickly refuted by pointing to sourced facts. Holly25 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly a peer is commonly understood to be "someone who is an equal in a group". So lets first settle who Cornish's peers are. Famous musicians (especially his customers) and magazine writers cannot be his peers. Hendrix essentially recorded between 1967-1970. The Hendrix article here claims "Hendrix was a catalyst in the development of modern guitar effects pedals" - so this is obviously well before Cornish whose own first claim (his website) for any guitar effect is 1972. It further states "As Hendrix's recording career progressed he made greater use of customized effects units" - Excuse me, but I thought that Cornish's claim to notability were *his* "customised effect units" (so again not the creator of anything)? The Gibson article refers only to the early Hendrix rigs. Many of the sources you cite imply that he hardly used Mayer's gizmos after the early album. The Gibson article also states that Hendrix's "line-up" (synonym for "sequential integration")) consisted of at least a Fuzzbox (tuned low) followed by a Wah-Wah and a Univibe (germanium transistor as I said) (phaser/comb filter) with additional selectable vibrato OR chorus effects (in the same Univibe unit). This lineup when coupled to his fave guitar(s) form the "rig". If you carefully examine the schematic of the Univibe.gif you will note the multiple CD-S photo sensors triggered from an "incandescent" bulb whose "warmup time" provides the "delay" (I conjecture the CD-S would be inside a long tube painted black on the inside). So in effect the Univibe is not only a phaser but also a sustain (to generate the chorus). The wiki "flanging" article claims that Electro-Harmonics made flange pedals since the 1970s (when did Cornish make his?). User generated reviews from his "not so famous" customers [13] claim that he is "2 person only operation", "pedal making god", "..will improve the sound of your other pedals as it has line driver built in". So what are we talking about here ? As I had stated (and the pedalboard wiki article too claims) the original pedalboards were simply a plank/board on which the individual pedals were mounted and wired up - a mere time saving device for the techs which ensured better consistency for the artiste (Big F***ing deal) - Cornish himself doesn't claim to have invented a pedalboard. He only claims (see his website) "Pete Cornish, the creator of integrated guitar effects and amp routing systems for the worlds best known performers". Jimi wouldn't be a peer in that group to disagree!!!
My Final Comment Lets be very blunt - Peter Cornish [14] is known for robust packaging of effect units manufactured by large companies with 1000's of employees. His famous musician clients (whose coke snorting lifestyles depend on it) regard him as a "genius" because he makes special casings which house these devices to work reliably in the field. This is because "Cornish actually began in the British Military by designing electronics capable of being dropped out of an airplane and still working right." Enough said!!! I've got better non-Anglo subjects to waste my wiki time on.Annette46 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His "peers" in this case would include the musicians and companies and magazines involved in the field of music technology, from which I've provided numerous sourced statements of this guy's importance in that field. Rather than challenging these sources or providing contrary sources, you've simply asserted (at great length) that you don't think he's important. (WP:CREATIVE #1)
I've also provided a source to show he invented the pedalboard and other sources showing he was a key figure in the development of multi-effects in general. You've dismissed these sources by asserting that such technology already existed (provably wrong), without providing any sources to back up this assertion, because no such sources exist. (WP:CREATIVE #2)
I've also provided 17 book references as evidence of general notability. If you think this is a waste of your time, then there was no point in needlessly extending the discussion in the first place by constantly bringing up new unfounded claims, none of which have addressed the sourced evidence I've provided. It just looks like arguing for argument's sake. Holly25 (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had not intended to participate again in this discussion, but in view of the 2nd relist I will just summarise/fleshout out my concerns - hoping that this leads to consensus. The only consensus thus far is that Cornish must satisfy one of 2 criteria for WP:CREATIVE to be retained.

  • CREATIVE-#1 The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  • CREATIVE-#2 The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

My comments are:-

  • CREATIVE #1 is to be interpreted as the persons peers ("equals in a group") regard him/her as either an "important figure" or cite him widely. It is my case that the citations thus far do not originate from his "peers", but are instead from non-independent sources such as his clients. Itis also my case that the citations put forward by USe;Holly25 do not refer to any specific achievements of his, but are in the nature of passing mentions and/or testimonials decribing him as a "leading personality", "genius" etc. No serious effort has been made in these citations to examine why Cornish is this supposedly leading personality / genius etc. or to critically compare/contrast him with his peers. In the circumstances, I say that CREATIVE #2 is actually the proper test for someone like Cornish.
  • User:Holly25 relies on this "Guitar Player article [15] which mentions him (in passing) as the inventor of the "pedalboard". However, if one cares to read a little further into that article, we find out exactly what the writer considers to be a "pedalboard" - commercially its "laminated board"and for DIYers its a "piece of plywood you get from a hardware store"(!). Onto this board you attach various single effect units or "pedals" (fuzz boxes, wah-wahs, vibraors, flangers, phasers, vibrato ...) with "nylon ties", "bungee cords", "Ductape" or "velcro". Also see Guitar pedalboard. No other source, including Pete Cornish himself claims Cornish invented/created the pedal board. His own website [16] says that in 1972 he built their first guitar effects board for Yes guitarist Peter Banks. Its alleged USP "specially designed preamps, buffers, and line drivers which replicate the characteristics of tube amp inputs thus eliminating the tone and volume losses associated with multiple pedal set ups by completely isolating each pedal from it’s neighbor.". So all this does is replace a "series" wiring rig by a parallel rig. This is hardly novel enough to justify his notability and in fact the "linear power boosters" from Electro-Harmonix were doing something similar in 1968-69 [17]. As any engineer can tell you all this is nothing but a practical application of active Impedance matching which was known since the 1920's.
  • Holly25's other source [18] says "Even pedal pioneers Roger Mayer and Pete Cornish started by modding existing equipment to find new sounds"
  • Cornish's own claim (and as the existing article states) is that he is "the creator of integrated guitar effects and amp routing systems for the worlds best known performers." A careful reading shows that the emphasis is on his famous clients (in other words a bespoke cobbler of guitar rigs). His website reproduces another specialist trade mag article exclusively on him "Originally printed in Musicians Only October 6, 1979 by Paul Colbert". This article clearly states "He doesn’t design effects units, though he has the knowledge. Wisely, he leaves that to the big firms geared up to turn out economically thousands of the gadgets. What he does, is to put them all under one roof, connect them all to one power point and make sure that they don’t fall apart under a roadie’s gentle touch." and "All the boards are one-offs."
  • In another specialist article on him, reproduced on his website "The Craftsmen—Pete Cornish - Originally published in Music UK Issue #6 1982 by Tony Bacon" we find him described as "Pete Cornish, electrical handyman to the big names of rock". The article describes his first pedal board "The first pedalboard was made for Robert Fripp in September 1973, although Pete mentions a ‘practice run’ for Pete Banks, then with Flash. Fripp’s board was part of a set for King Crimson (fellow Cornished Crimsoners being John Wetton and David Cross) and comprised of a Guild Foxy Lady, Guilds version of the Big Muff Fuzz, a Cry Baby wah-wah, a Farfisa wooden-bodied volume pedal (‘The best volume pedal I’ve ever come across.” Says Pete, “very expressive”), plus an echo send and return, and a bypass switch for the echo and effects (but not the volume). It was all powered by one big battery in a compartment underneath.". We may note that this setup includes a clone of Electro-Harmonix's Big Muff Fuzz.
  • Cornish is undoubtedly a first class electrical handyman, excellent at combining standalone units made by others and packaging them reliably - thus earning him praise from his clients and trade magazines/publications - but this does not enable to meet CREATIVE-#2 (or #1). Annette46 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These all boil down to "the source describes him as a genius/legend/pioneer, but if you read on you'll find some small fact that means I personally don't find him important" (e.g. the fact that he doesn't design the individual effects that are integrated into his units -- something which I've been clear about since the beginning). These sources are from experts in the relevant field, so the fact that they judge him important takes precedence over your personal opinions on that. I'll stop there since this is already much, much too long. Holly25 (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People praise me for the websites i've designedf for them, and media editting i've done for them, combining techiniques in my own style.. yet, i'm not notable enough for a wikipedia article either.. what I do is no differant than what Cornish does, he takes what's already there, and makes it work in his own way, his clients love how he does it and praise him, just as mine do with me. Now the person who took various effects, and created a single pedal to contain them all, controlled by a micro computer, is notable for actually creating something new, Cornish, is not. Again, this article is more of a promotion then a notable biography. Alan - talk 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you were mentioned in 17 books, had articles written about you, had magazines refer to you as a "legend" and "pioneer" and had key figures in your field testify to your importance -- then of course you'd warrant an article -- there would be no doubt. Show me the sources and I'll write it for you.
The "clients" issue which keeps cropping up is a red herring because that only covers two of the sources: Brian May and Lou Reed. The rest are books and magazines.
In the end, you're stating your opinion that what he does is not important. The books and magazine articles say that he is important. And because everything here is ultimately based on reliable sources, their opinions must take precedence. Holly25 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There have been 5 editors in this afd, 3 keep and 2 delete. I hope it isn't relisted again, the conversation just goes around in circles!!! Szzuk (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, 2 "keeps" (you incl) changed their "votes" presuming that Cornish invented the "pedalboard" (on a single source claim) and there were 3 Googlebook refs on him for notability. The invention claim on analysis does/did not stand up. Even Holly25 probably conceding that he does not fulfill CREATIVE-#2 (not having created anything new) now focuses on it "boils down to" CREATIVE-#1 - ie. sources which describe him as a leader/pioneer/genius. Let me take those 3 Googlebook refs one by one. 1) The BOSS book merely refers to custom effect board systems made by Cornish (on only 1 of its many pages) without commenting on either him or his units - No praise here. 2) The Micheal Ross Book merely states that Bob Bradshaw and Pete Cornish were building "custom effect switching systems" for the stars of rock - once again no praise here - just a factual mention that these 2 are in this business. 3) The Matt Bruck ref is actually an article extensively quoting Bob Bradshaw on pedalboards - Pete Cornish gets just a token nod like 'Oh BTW I must mention that Pete Cornish is also a leader in his field'. All the other 14 so-called reliable sources are just passing mentions / testimonials of Cornish. In contrast, the solid articles on on Cornish and reproduced on his website make it clear that he is simply a competent and sought after craftsman who makes custom effect switching systems for famous rock artistes. The heart of CREATIVE-#1 is that the sources confirming Cornish to be an important figure must originate from his peers (which is not the case here). Annette46 (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not going around in circles with you. My opinion stays with Keep. Szzuk (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sourced invention claim hasn't been "conceded"; it still stands as evidence that he is "known for inventing". Your "analysis" consisted of pointing to earlier technology like fuzz boxes and making the bizarre assertion that they were "multi-effects", even though no reliable source has ever called them that. Let's pretend for a moment that your claims were true: what would it prove? Only that he's known erroneously by this source as the inventor. In other words, he'd still be "known as the inventor" in the eyes of that source even if Edison had come up with the idea in 1904.
The emphasis moved on to sourced claims of importance because I found more of those sources since the start of the discussion. "Peers", in the sense used in Peer review, refers to experts in a given field, and relates to their ability to offer a meaningful opinion. In this sense, the specialist magazine articles and books and major guitarists are all his peers in the field of music (specifically guitar) technology. Even if you insist on a different definition of "peers", the sources provided meet the more general standards of WP:N: multiple, non-trivial references. Directly calling someone a "genius", a "legend", a "pioneer", a "leader" is not a trivial reference. "Passing" does not equal "trivial"; they are significant in that they signify the source's high opinion of the subject's importance, and no further detail or original research is required to extract this opinion. The books in which he was mentioned during an account of the development of the technology provide evidence of significance, even if they don't explicitly use that wording (he wouldn't be mentioned otherwise). On top of that, there are magazine articles of which he is the main subject and a book which devotes an entire section to interviewing him. Holly25 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. fleeting mentions by his clients during an interview does not constitute peer review. The "genius" (exceedingly fleeting) mention by Lou Reed was for allegedly keeping loud sounds soft so that Reed wouldn't go deaf (the interview fails to describe how he did it - did Pete Cornish invent earmuffs?). The single source which claims he invented pedalboards justifies that he will be known as the inventor ?? Bollocks !!. BTW I did not claim a fuzzbox was a multi-effect. What I said was "These multi-effects consisted of at least a "sustain" and "fuzz" and often a "wah-wah" (variable comb filter) combined in the same housing.". So refrain from deceptive practices. Annette46 (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out the most appropriate interpretation of "peers", and of course not claiming that the academic process of "peer review" was at work here. And "clients", as I've pointed out, only applies to two of the sources, where I don't see it being an important factor: May and Reed are both multimillionaires and are hardly going to be swayed by offers of a discount if they get publicity for Cornish.
As to the "fuzz box" sentence, I'm not being deceptive: that's what you appeared (to me) to call it in the very next sentence. You said Hendrix was using "multi-effects" in a single housing, then said Robin Trower was using the "fuzz box" at the same time as Hendrix; I read this as meaning Hendrix's sustain/fuzz/wah-wah were combined in a single housing known as a "fuzz box". They were actually all separate units, as I've already shown.
Reed's "genius" mention is fleeting, but it's one of the few cases where a single word is sufficient to establish his high opinion of the subject. The other interview explains the "deaf" comment, he was trying to get feedback effects without having to stand next to a speaker at high volume, and Cornish built some custom equipment to achieve that. Reed and Cornish were jointly interviewed for Japan's "Guitar Magazine" in 2001 (mentioned here and here, but not available online). Holly25 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CREATIVE #1 & #2 have been amply demonstrated. The arguments against don't really hold water: the claim that Hendrix used multi-effects units is demonstrably false (the univibe is not a multi-effect); that he didn't invent effects pedal customization in general is irrelevant (nobody was arguing that he did, only pedalboards); the reading of the term "peer" seems overly restrictive. — Gwalla | Talk 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On Creative-#2, May I enquire exactly which "significant new concept, theory or technique" reliable sources attribute as originating from Cornish ? The statement that Hendrix used multiple effects (and not multiple effects units) is demonstrably true - many sources state that he used a combination (aka "pedalchain") of sustain/fuzz/wahwah in series and later also a univibe (which from analysis of its schematic has at least 2 simultaneous mixed effects within it - ie. phase shifting and sweep). The fact that even 40 years after Hendrix's passing effects manufacturers are still trying to duplicate his setup within a single unit [19] must say something. Examining the notability claims in the article itself - we find 2 specific claims therein. a) That he invented the "pedalboard" (1 source), b) That he is a key figure in the transition from single effects to the development of multi-effects units. A passing mention in a single source (which previously admits in the same article that "Many players build their own pedalboards") is not sufficient for the extraordinary claim that Cornish invented (?) the pedal board. In any case the so-called invention of a pedalboard (described by the other sources cited in the article as "a piece of wood you buy in a hardware shop") can hardly be said to be a significant new concept justifying inclusion. So far none of the sources cited have claimed that Cornish originated either any single effect or any multiple effect unit. From the article subject's website) and from in-depth articles (exclusively on him) reproduced on his website we see that Cornish's specialty was integration of single effects (manufactured by others) by A) connecting / isolating them properly B) Packaging them to work reliably. This is why he is claimed to be a key figure in the transition period. I shall address your points about WP-CREATIVE-#1 after we reach some consensus on #2 . Annette46 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a

  • Delete. Does not meet anything in WP-Creative. Now as a guitar slinger myself, I wouldn't mind having him throw all my stomp boxes together into a single rig, but after reading all this text*, I agree this person doesn't meet Wiki standards. (*anyone have an aspirin?) --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 05:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pete_Cornish&oldid=340286734"