Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time

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 Delete Naconkantari 04:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time[edit]

Completing AfD started by anon, reason from change summary and my talk page: "This article can't possibly provide any useful information without either a) violating copyright or b) descending into non-NPOV fanboyism ("so-and-so is arguably deserving/not") All these Rolling Stone list pages have got to go. They're either stubs for ever or magnets for fanboy indignation. - Maggie --70.48.205.21" (I'm abstaining) Jamoche 02:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either it violates WP:NPOV or WP:COPYVIO, take yer pick. Danny Lilithborne 02:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Danny Lilithborne. Magazine stories are relatively short; to include useful information on them, you have to either reproduce an unacceptable amount of information, or make stuff up. --Masamage 03:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hopelessly POV. Hopelessly.--aviper2k7^(talk) 04:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Infrogtation tried to close this debate with a result of speedy keep, when there are four delete votes. Reverted and questioned. MER-C 07:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been a pain in the arse. There was a period when it was a reasonable article. But then you get people putting the list back in, despite the hidden messages asking them not to. Also, then you get "blah blah should be on here" or "blah blah should be higher than blahder de blah" The JPS ^{talk to me} 08:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and due to lack of **insert guitarist here**. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 08:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's impossible to conceive that an article of this name could be written in an an NPOV manner, and indeed it does seem to be pushing a fairly narrow agenda. Rather unhelpful, really. BTLizard 09:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Common article from a magazine without any real claim to significance or an unusual amount of attention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete cuz it left out Slash! Wah!! (ahem) Actually, I was the anon who proposed we delete this, and I'm right. - Maggie --70.48.205.21 14:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contentwise this is going to be a POV, Original research, & fanboy magnet unless the section "Notable guitarists not on the list commonly cited as deserving of inclusion include..." is agressively excised from this list... but that is a content issue. The real problem is that you take out all the OR & unverified speculation, all you have left is an article about a cover story from one issue of Rolling Stone, which was inexplicably moved to the current namespace, and doesn't really make a strong case for importance of this one RS article. Rolling Stone isn't the be all and end all of guitar playing critique and I would argue isn't even a reliable source on the topic; this isn't Guitarist Magazine...--Isotope23 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to future recreation. If we can have Historical rankings of United States Presidents, we could theoretically have an NPOV article about the greatest guitarists of all time - but an article about a single Rolling Stone article is not notable. There would need to be significantly more sources. --Hyperbole 16:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an encylopedia entry for an article in a magazine? Delete. QuiteUnusual 20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently POV, that which is not a copyvio is original research. Guy 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BTLizard and nomination. Encyclopedias aren't about POV lists. —K e akealani 21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles like this can never be NPOV. ObtuseAngle 04:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is done, SOME discussion of the all-time best guitarists is useful. Rolling Stone Magazine can be a source, without being the definitive list. But keep some listing of the greats. Tawn 06:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We can't keep a listing of "great" guitarists because such a listing will inevitably be POV, whether it follows the essentially rockist agenda of the present article or some other range of criteria. BTLizard 11:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The Rolling Stone list is biased from the ground up - I would suggest that the greatest guitarist of the 20th Century was probably Andres Segovia and any list of the supposed greatest guitarists which omits Segovia, Django Reinhardt, John Williams and Julian Bream is of decidedly questionable merit. One of my most vivid memories is hearing John Williams perform in St Albans Abbey - one man and an acoustic guitar in one of the largest cathedral naves in England, without any amplification. The audience was around a thousand people and you could have heard a pin drop, it felt as if there were just the two of us there. A truly breathtaking performance. Guy 12:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks for making me jealous Guy...--Isotope23 13:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if there is more than one list of greatest guitarists, then a sourced List of guitarists labeled the greatest ever would be encyclopaedic if maintained (cf List of songs in English labeled the worst ever). Thryduulf 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Although that article is enormously enjoyable and has survived four nominations for deletion, it also has four problem-templates at the top. Surely not a good sign for future articles in the same vein. --Masamage 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no, it would not. It would be a copyvio of intellectual property. As is this. Delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The point of articles like this is that the list is a handy way to cite acclaim for a guitarist without saying "regarded by many...", and linking to an article on the list rather than to the list itself allows for some contexualization--like pointing out that the list, being compiled by a rock music magazine, is inevitably a list of rock guitarists rather than all guitarists. It's clear that this article is headed for deletion, but perhaps it could be reborn as an article that brings together several similar lists from different sources for a broader approach. Nareek 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot keep this, it's a copyright violation. You could, instead of saying "regarded by many as ...", simply say "voted in the top 100 ..." and link to the offline page. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In violation of WP:NPOV and per others. Never Mystic (t c) 21:38, 6 October 2006 (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.