Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos


 * 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 of the discussion was delete. Consensus favors deletion, and besides, this article as it stands isn't about this list, it just gives the list. If the list is such a valuable source, perhaps it could go on wikisource? Here, though, it's inappropriate. Mango juice talk 05:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos
Copyvio, wasn't listed correctly (not the nominator for deletion) Ryulong 01:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I have given the original AfD lister the right to change my comment to show the true reason behind his listing of the page. I do still think it should be deleted, though. --Ryulong 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

style="color: rgb(255, 10, 0);"> Humphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC) style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"> Curtis talk+contributions 16:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, long list of guitar-wanking. Preeeeow. BoojiBoy 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not necessary -- Librarianofages 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless User:Daniel Olsen can demonstrate we have approval to run this. Even if, which I doubt, it's inclusion is debatable, the reason it is here.. Moriori 01:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyvio. ~Kylu ( u | t )  02:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not necessary article in Wikipedia. *~Daniel~* ☎ 03:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete copyvio. -- Emc² ( CONTACT ME ) 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if permission is given I'm working on obtaining permission from Guitar World, I think this is an important poll showing the most popular songs, and as many song pages list where the song ranks in popular polls, and shows the relative importance of the songs. If I can't get permission then I support the delete, but I've worked to get the page interlinked with the most popular songs on the list and I think this can provide information to people wanting to know about the most popular songs. --Daniel Olsen 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While true, the list is a copyright violation and is only a list of songs enjoyed by readers of Guitar World magazine. Every classic rock list has Stairway to Heaven as the most popular song, no matter what the list is for. This list of "greatest guitar solos" is no more notable than (e.g.) Q104.3's top rock songs (which has also had Stairway to Heaven as number 1). Ryulong 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that a poll by Guitar World is slightly more important than one from a local radio station, all I'm asking for is to have it kept until I get a response from the magazine on whether or not we have permission. Many of the top songs list many polls, I think it would help to tie it all together. If someone sees info about the poll on a page of a song, they'd be likely to click and see what else is on the list, and click some links there. That's the usefullness of Wikipedia.--Daniel Olsen 05:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this article has already been added to AntiWikipedia, so it doesn't need to be here anymore. Get rid of it as soon as possible.24.90.233.29 06:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How does it being added to Antiwikipedia mean that it doesn't still belong here? A screenshot on another site is no substitute for a wikipedia article. --Daniel Olsen 07:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep iff permission is given. David Sneek 06:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as COPYVIO and WP:NOT Alphachimp   talk  06:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:NOT which describes this, and it's in no violation of the three cardinal rules, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Once the copyright issue is resolved then I don't think it will violate anything described on WP:DEL --Daniel Olsen 07:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, for wow effect!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 09:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if permission granted in time, otherwise obvious Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 10:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - for being Copyvio. If permission is obtained later then recreate together with proof of permission provided. --WinHunter (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above. -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 13:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:COPYVIO David <span
 * Delete as proposal. michael <span
 * Speedy delete as copyvio Computerjoe 's talk 18:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio and vandalism magnet (we went over this with the Blender magazine articles). -- nae'blis (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not sure that you need permission to publish poll results, but it's still non notable. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment after reading WP:C, it seems to me that the data in this article ISN'T a copyvio: "copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves." --Daniel Olsen 08:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The world loves a trier, but there are limits. If any magazine creates a database, and publishes it in its own magazine, it owns the copyright. It can even own the original design of the format if it is a unique format. You or I cannot reproduce it without approval of the magazine. We can refer to it for various reasons, but not reproduce it in toto. Moriori 09:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From United States Copyright Law: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." -From the 1976 Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 102). I reproduced no more than the information itself, no commentary or writing. I really don't think this is copyvio. --Daniel Olsen 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahem. You mentioned the words "an original work of authorship".  That is exactly the description of the work you have copy and pasted. Moriori 06:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure... or discovery...". The copyright protection for their original work of authorship (their original article) does not include the information they discover, therefore listing the information is not a copyright violation. --Daniel Olsen 07:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya know, I am pleased this seems destined for the chop. Moriori 08:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would you be happy that a useful page is going to be deleted, especially after it seems it ISN'T in violation of anything? Shouldn't you be trying to figure out if this page truly warrants deletion instead of trying to get it deleted regardless of WP policy? Why do you have such a passion for getting this page killed? --Daniel Olsen 08:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If this page lists it also would that not imply that this is not a copyright violation? --Javsav 15:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * No it doesn't. You apparently missed something at that site - "©2006 About, Inc." Just in case you are unaware, "©" means copyright. Moriori 21:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.