Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple guitar players

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple guitar players[edit]

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

Non-notable topic, formed of original research augmented by the synthesis of unreliable sources. The author inflates normal musical collaboration, normal harmony and counterpoint between two similar instruments, which is not made special because the two instruments are two guitars. It's like having multiple gears in a machine: it is common, not notable, and we would not write an article about it called Multiple gears in a machine, despite the many times that multiple gears have been part of commentary on machines. This article uses the same kind of mentions in passing, rather than even one in-depth article about a special musical situation called "multiple guitar players". Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has a long history, being created about seven years ago. There are several alternate titles which are redirects to the page including Rhythm and Lead Guitar, Twin guitar and Second lead guitar. The idea seems to be document the two main guitar parts in modern rock & roll, blues or heavy metal ensembles, especially when there are two leads or the lead/rhythm parts alternate. It should be read in conjuction with the pages rhythm guitar and lead guitar, which link to the page so that they form a set. This set of topics seems to be quite significant in musical history and it doesn't seem difficult to find sources which discuss it in detail. For example, see Rock and Roll: An Introduction which discusses the seminal role of Chuck Berry in establishing both the archetypal lead and rhythm styles. The Blues Encyclopedia has a more extensive account of different band structures and, for example, highlights the influential style of the Allman Brothers, who used two lead guitars in harmony. No doubt, there is much more to be done here but our editing policy is to develop the page further, not to delete it. Andrew (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page having a long history is not an argument for keeping it. The seminal role of Chuck Berry forms a basis for our articles about Lead guitar and Rhythm guitar but not this synthesis about two leads. The Blues Encyclopedia in your link talks about the band structures power trio and the four-piece classic rock line-up (for which Wikipedia has no article), but the encyclopedia only mentions twin lead guitars in passing, as being associated with the Allman Brothers' fuller sound, and they don't name the style or go into any depth about it. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The concept of the use of rhythm and lead guitar in rock/pop music, and the variations which have evolved from that, would seem to me to be fundamentally notable. But the article needs a complete overhaul, and its a worthwhile subject for us to devote time to.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. I'm all for adding information to Wikipedia, but before I nominated this page for deletion I looked and looked for some kind of in-depth discussion about it, and I found nothing. If you want to help expand the encyclopedia, write an article about the Rock foursome aka the Four-piece rock band which is really a thing. This article here is just synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, finding sources for fundamental concepts like this can sometimes be hard. All news sources, and most books, assume people understand the dynamic in pop music of lead guitar/rhythm guitar, and its variants. But as I said, a complete overhaul is needed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my position continues to be that this idea of a rock band having two lead guitarists is not a "fundamental concept" in rock, not by a long stretch. It's worth a paragraph in the as-yet-unwritten article about a rock band with four players, which is a fundamental formation in rock, and has been written about in depth. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The writing of paragraphs is best done by ordinary editing and deletion would be no help in this. As for fundamentals, please see Gibson's advice on Back to basics, including Rhythm vs. lead guitar and Get your guitars working together. Q.E.D. Andrew (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gibson website gives advice to young guitarists. It does not tell us that two lead guitars is a notable topic. Instead, it says that the roles of lead guitar and rhythm guitar do not have to be set in stone. A band can have two guitarists playing rhythm together or two playing lead together, swapping roles as needed. The website never says anything to signify that two lead guitarists is a classic setup, or a significant method, or any sort of noteworthy thing. There's just different ways of working together. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a synthesis article. The articles topic is not clear enough for there to be potential for a future as a notable topic, and while the specific types of guitar players are obviously notable this is not a plausible redirect for a disambiguation page or any other topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis article, even the title appears to be made up and only appears in mirrors of WP, or to mention guitarists who play more than one guiar. As the nominator correctly points out the musical theory for two or more instruments playing together is the same irrespective of the instruments themselves. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the made-up name is a huge indicator. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/merge. It needs help-- a name change and rewrite, but it does seem like there's a kernel here that should kept. Darmokand (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The objection is that the name is wrong and the content is OR so not sure there is anything to salvage, but I'd have no objections to the article being userfied and brought back with a better title and without the OR. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Binksternet's arguments, they are reasonable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2014 (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.