Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lead guitarists


 * 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 No Consensus.  Citi Cat   ♫ 02:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

List of lead guitarists

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft ... not likely this list will ever be complete. Blueboy96 13:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - List criteria seems to be checked and maintained. List is a verifiable resource for a specific guitarist role. Peter Fleet 13:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Incomplete and unmaintainable. Apart from that, under what circumstances is this a valuable search tool?  Someone looking for the lead guitarist from a band would simply search for the band.  E LIMINATOR JR   TALK  15:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's being constantly maintained by several editors. It also does not come under any of the listed reasons for deletion. Likelihood of completion is not a valid reason. Many WP articles are unlikely to ever be completed yet the existence of the article is important to WP. As regards validity of a search tool, a search on a guitarist's name will allow the searcher to find the band, or perhaps more importantly, previous bands the musician has played in.
 * Comment If you already knew the guitarist's name, though, you'd simply go to his/her article. I'd be more convinced by its use if it was in alphabetical list of band.  Also, as regards reasons for deletion, how about WP:NOT?.  E LIMINATOR JR   TALK  16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If you want a list by band, you can create List of lead guitarists by band, or make this list into a sortable wikitable. DHowell 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - that may be a valid reason for specific searches, but what about generic searches of lead guitarists? WebHamster 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per above -- CJ Marsicano 16:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Category suffices this purpose Corpx 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Corpx.--JForget 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant with Category:Lead guitarists JulesH 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it would, however, be useful if a bot were able to add the entries from the list to the category first. JulesH 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Unlike List of rhythm guitarists, this one already has a category. However, it would take a lot of effort to merge with the category, so I'm kinda leaning towards keep. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant with category. I would suggest a list of notable lead guitarists, but even that could get big and unmaintainable depending on the definition of "notable".  The especially notable ones can be mentioned in lead guitar. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We already have a definition of "notable" and there is a Wikipedia convention that "List of X" usually means "List of notable X". DHowell 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists serve or browsing, and can include individuals which do not yet have a WP article. There is no consensus that everything that is a category cannot have a broader scope list, or a list that can give more information or arrangement than just a category does. If it is desired to eliminate lists altogether, start a community discussion of the change in WP policy that is being proposed. 01:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, or change criteria for inclusion. I agree with the above statement about lists (as opposed to categories).  However, a group of editors has decided to go against WP editing guidelines, and has included the statement Only add names here if the person has their own article - anything else will be removed.  Unless this is changed to conform with guidelines such as WP:RED and WP:LISTS, this article is redundant. Dsreyn 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "A group of editors"??? = concensus doesn't it? No article/no inclusion is an excellent rule that should be followed on all lists. Fair Deal 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Category. Bearian 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The guitarist is the quarterback of any band, the skilled player whose work makes or breaks the band's success. Mandsford 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Isnt that a very subjective statement, just like it would be for a QB? Corpx 01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. -- CJ Marsicano 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Defense wins championships :) Corpx 05:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also would like to note that List of American Football Quarterbacks does not exist, while Category:American football quarterbacks does exist. Corpx 03:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a verifiable list. It's easier to maintain than a category and also a quicker search tool. Fair Deal 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, because a category wouldn't include the bands in which these lead guitarists played, which makes this list already more informative than a category. Second, because it has the potential to be expanded and annotated, see, e.g. List of Electric blues musicians. Third, if this list gets to large to maintain it can be split by either country of origin or genre (blues, rock, heavy metal, etc.). Fourthly, this is not listcruft as Lead guitar is an encyclopedic topic. See also Articles for deletion/List of guitarists and Articles for deletion/List of women bass guitarists for more arguments for keeping lists similar to this one. See also Categories, lists, and series boxes which specifically says "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." DHowell 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:Listcruft is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Also, the only reference to incomplete lists I can find on Wikipedia is at WikiProject_Lists, which ackowledges most lists never will be complete. It says nothing of deleting a list that may never be complete, and instead asks users to insert to articles that are in such a state. I am voting for a keep due to the opening rationale, which is WP:POINT, not WP:POLICY. (Mind meal 10:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete per no original research, and the fact that it doesn't have any reliable sources. Also redundant with the category, and list can never conceivability be finished.  Whispe ring  14:57, 27 July 2007 (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.