Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guitarists considered the greatest

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitarists considered the greatest[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Who is the greatest guitarist is point of view. Someone thinks its Jimi Hendrix and someone else thinks it's Duane Allman, and so on. There's no way of neutrally determine one guitarist's quality. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But this is a well sourced article about those lists, a very interesting article. Maybe a rename to "Lists of ..." or some such. As long as it stays away from becoming a wikipedia list of the greatest guitarists then that is fine. Polargeo (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 20:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic of the world's greatest guitarists should be discussed in Guitar (or some article spun off from that), and these published lists used as sources. When someone reprints a published list (or even the top 10 of one) this is a rip-off of someone else's work, even if it might not be found a copyright violation in a court of law (although it could be -- this is not a threat. :-) ) Also external links is a great way to make this info available to WP readers. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, sources listed are reliable and verifyable, and the title "considered" makes it wiki appropriate. PamelaBMX 21:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PamelaBMX (talk • contribs)
Keep, the article itself doesn't not define who's the greatest, it just provides brief information (and so does not violate the copyright) about other lists made by well-known publications, so it cannot be considered biased or POV. This well sourced article is not at all different than this or this so the request for deletion is not appropriate. Grenouille vert (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an article about great guitarists, not one about lists of possible greatest guitarist. Use the lists as reliable sources for the real article. Northwestgnome (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article for great guitarists will more probably risk the neutrality of Wikipedia than this article because we cannot create the criteria for one who can be considered "great guitarist", for the same reason we do not have articles like "Great US Presidents" instead of Historical rankings of United States Presidents. Grenouille vert (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change to "Lists..." -- this is apparently not an article about who is the greatest, but about various lists of who the sources involved considered to be. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment digital dream world is not notable. content is mostly about the guitar player and rolling stone articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a big difference between writing about one's personal opinion about who is "the greatest", and making a record of the published opinions of others concerning who is "the greatest". WP:POV applies to the need to keep a neutral tone in writing. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. There should be an article Guitarist, in which these published lists are used as sources. I agree that WP should not give an opinion on which is greatest, only report what others have said. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no merge. A well-sourced list, similar in kind to List of films considered the worst, and a good example of a NPOV list on an inherently subjective topic. Strongly disagree that this should be merged into the guitarist article, which should probably be merged and redirected to guitar unless much more can be written about the figure of the guitarist independent of the instrument itself. — Gwalla | Talk 18:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree,. The article about guitar is about guitar. The article guitarist is about playing techniques and actually playing the instrument and notable guitarists. The guitarist article just need a tremendous amount of expansion and the lists will look more at home their than in POV seperate article with a name like "considered the greatest" which might I add would be rejected from any FAC if an article contained that level of subjectivety and peacocking.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Gwalla. This article is well sourced and well written.--AM ^(talk) 02:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I'm normally a deletionist, this article is good. Soxwon (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm well at the least the Digital Dream Door is a more accurate list (but is this really a valid source anyway??)...... But such list are heavily biased towards the US and UK and rock. Add some respectable blues and jazz guitarist lists and it might balance it out a bit. But it is still the POV of the people who vited or magazine....I am just concerned where this is going, if we accept lists because of sources, how long is it before we have List of ice cream flavors considered the most delicious. It really is the same sort of subjective content I really don't think belongs in an encyclopedia....I understand how you think rather than it being our view it is published elsewhere and we are reporting it but this sort of content belongs in a magazine not an encyclopedia in my view..... An encyclopedia should cover facts not opinions or representations of opinions which is what these polls are.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge These lists if deemed acceptable by the community should go in the Guitarist article I think. I've merged them as that article was pretty empty. I hope we decide to redirect this into the guitarist article as there doesn't seme a point in having a seperate article...But any list which considers Keith Richards and Jimmy Page better guitarists than guitarists such as Al di Meola or Santana (who both strangely are ignored by these lists) is a joke....Most influentual maybe rather than "greatest".....The scary thing is that Time magazine think Slash #2 and Keith Richards #4 LOL. Both are pretty average players in terms of ability or talent but have a big sound..... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be cleaned up, improved and kept. Dr. Blofeld, it's better you don't discuss here who's a better guitarist. The purpose of this page is discussion for deletion. --Scieberking (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.