Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rhythm 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 convert to a category such as Category:Rhythm guitarists. Even if arguments pertaining to the incompleteness of the list are disreagarded, there is consensus, based on a broad majority here, that this subject matter is better organised as a category. — The article should be tagged for speedy deletion with reference to this AfD once all articles have received the category tag. However, the person doing the conversion may want to not add the tag to those articles that do not even mention the artist's work as a rhytm guitarist. Sandstein 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

List of rhythm guitarists

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft, unsure if it will ever be complete Blueboy96 13:22, 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 13:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Incomplete and unmaintainable. Apart from that, under what circumstances is this a valuable search tool?  Someone looking for the rhythm guitarist from a band would simply search for the band.  E LIMINATOR JR   TALK  15:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Peter Fleet -- CJ Marsicano 16:24, 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 per Corpx. JulesH 17:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Although note that there isn't currently a Category:Rhythm guitarists. Can this list be automatically converted into a category? JulesH 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or convert to category. As a list, this one is rather easily verifiable and clear-cut. (If you're not playing rhythm, then you're playing lead -- unless you're in a punk rock band, in which case you're just banging the frets randomly.) I wouldn't mind if it were converted to a category however.
 * Delete - use a category instead. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As others have said, a category should be used instead of this. 72.66.17.219 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC) — 72.66.17.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I believe User:72.66.17.219 is a sockpuppet, as the only edit they have ever made to Wikipedia was right here. Something smells rotten in Denmark with a lot of these votes here lately. (Mind meal 03:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete - ditto; this is much better as a category for notable rhythm guitarists. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Category. Bearian 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, because a category wouldn't include the bands in which these rhythm 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, because I don't believe that there are so many notable rhythm guitarists that this list will be unmaintainable; if it does get to large, it can be split by either country of origin or genre (blues, rock, heavy metal, etc.). Fourthly, this is not listcruft as Rhythm 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 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Listcruft is an essay, not a guideline. The word is used so often as a rationale for deleting lists that this needs to be pointed out every time such rationale is provided by those pretending it is a guideline. If the nominator continues to nominate deletions of lists on the basis of listcruft, they are then guilty of WP:Point. This is a disruptive practice where in which the one implicated refuses to recognize governing policy by ignoring it, instead trying to thwart the system by inserting personal bias that has no binding consensus and therefore no legal binding. This nomination was made on non-binding grounds. Also, argument on lists being deleted in favor of categories instead are not supported by guidelines on the matter. Please see Categories, lists, and series boxes which DHowell mentioned where it states "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. Again, failure for an editor to have read these guidelines and cease arguing in favor of deleting lists and converting them into categories makes one guilty of WP:Point. This is the improper place to insert personal views on what policy should be. You don't like the policy or specific guidelines? Then change the policy. Change the guideline. Don't circumvent them. Also, see WikiProject_Lists, which says nothing of an incomplete list being grounds for deletion. The entire nomination here is groundless. (Mind meal 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
 * CommentI guess I should've expanded more on why I think a category would suit better.  WP:NOT says WP is not a list of loosely associated topics.  Being a "rhythm guitarist" is loose, in my opinion, when I consider the sheer number of candidates out there (notable or non-notable).   It should be replaced with a category, just like Category:Point guards exists instead of List of Point Guards Corpx 03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The following is my response to Corpx on their talk page: "You have selected a very narrow portion of policy that simply does not say what you say it does. It states that "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". So you must be arguing that these guitarists are not, in fact, notable for playing rhythm guitar. That is the only argument that could be made here, because the very section of WP:NOT you keep referencing states what I just quoted for you. The list topic is musicians who perform rhythm guitar. That criteria for inclusion is far from loose; in fact, it is rather precise and defines greatly who can and who cannot appear there. It is not like List of guitarists, which is much more "loose". You are effectively advocating that one delete any list of musicians by style or instrument given your quite peculiar view on policy, and I will be considering seeking outside (nonpartisan) opinions on this matter so that we both might learn what policy actually says in this regard. Do you have consensus for your take? Right now we are arguing about whether a rock does or does not exist. Surely it either exists or it does not, and so it is with opinions on what language in a policy means." (Mind meal 07:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment - My reasoning for delete does apply the parameters as I understand them of Categories, lists, and series boxes. Converting a list to a category is in keeping with the policy. In this instance we have a category of rhytm guitarists, not the most notable group of individuals in the first place, being presented as a list. I think it will become unmanageable; as often as we have useless articles created it would not take long for editors to make this list overflow with guitarists. There is nothing else that binds this group of individuals together other than their guitar. How can you list Glenn Frey of the Eagles with Lynval Golding fo the Specials; the only thing in common is they play rhythm guitar. I think a category works best when a list of individuals is so disparate. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Specifically, what part of Categories, lists, and series boxes supports your conclusion? Since the article rhythm guitar exists, are you calling into question the notability of that article? Are you questioning the notablity of musicians who perform rhythm guitar? On what basis have you considered rhythm guitarists not notable? What is there about "rhythm guitarist" that is not specific enough? Do you want them split by genre? The criteria for inclusion on the list is as narrow as any other list. Personal opinions here are fine, but they must be supported by policy for something as serious as deletion. That is my reason for so many questions. What else can a musician be notable for outside of genre and technique? I am curious how one can list any musician ever outside of List of musicians given all of these interpretations of policy. Is not list of musicians far more hard to manage, and is not rhythm guitarists exactly what is intended for lists that must be broken down? (Mind meal 07:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete per no original research, the fact that it doesn't have any reliable sources. Also would be redundant with a category, and list can never conceivability be finished.  Whispe ring  14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when has an incomplete list been an acceptable rationale for deletion? What article on Wikipedia is ever truly complete? If the problem is references, tag it appropriately! Just like you would any article that can be googled for accuracy, but lacks sufficient sourcing. This is systematic bias I see on here over and over, and it is time for editors of good faith to challenge these weak, "my opinion over guidelines and policy" voters who keep showing up on here. I lose faith in this place more and more every day with these deletionists who are too lazy to improve an article when they spot a problem. Fact check the thing if you think it isn't right. This whole process is a complete joke. "Guidelines? Policy? Heh. I'm the decider, and I decide!" (Mind meal 06:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment Alright that's true, but what about the other problems?  Whispe ring  14:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a verifiable list of a specific guitarist speciality. Seal Clubber 22:48, 28 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.