Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Guitar


 * 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   redirect to Classical guitar.  MBisanz  talk 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Guitar article reflect popular misconceptions

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete request for "Spanish Guitar" on grounds of WP:Content forking. The article's information incorrectly ascribes the term "Spanish Guitar" to Archtop guitars.  "Spanish guitar" is synomous with "Classical guitar" (modern classical types that originated with the work of Antonio Torres Jurado). The second edition of the Oxford English Oxford Dictionary defines the "Spanish guitar" as "the standard six string (orig. five-stringed) non-electric guitar, used for both folk and classical music." The online Collins English Dictionary defines the "Spanish guitar" as "the classic form of the guitar; a six-stringed instrument with a wasted body and a central sound hole." . These definitions contradict that in the "Spanish Guitar" article but are very much like that of the "Classical guitar". A review of the guitar history books will confirm this (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, especially if you are an SME and the author of that article can't provide valid, reliable sources as to his assertions. Can you provide backing for your argument? Not being difficult here, but your argument for the AfD rests on opinion at this point. §FreeRangeFrog 01:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no guitar books to hand at the moment - if you check encyclopedias like the Britannica and the articles even in the Wikipedia on Archtop guitars and Antonio Torres Jurado, you'll quickly see this article's mistakes Provocateur (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article should be a redirect then. §FreeRangeFrog 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect following Marshall's argument. Weak delete --this is not a very well-formed nomination and low on argument. The last sentence of the first paragraph basically states the case; some of the rest is a bit confusing, and I note that the first nay-sayer votes based only on authority. But a cursory search using Google Books (and indeed, as nominator suggests, WP's own articles--Modern classical guitar, for instance) indicates that nominator is correct. That the article in question is completely unreferenced doesn't help either. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Classical guitar, as this article was until recently. JulesH (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per JulesH. I just want to say: "Unreferenced" doesn't mean "delete", it means "search for references and cut any material you can't reference".  "Poor quality content" doesn't mean "delete", it means "write better content".  In this case "Spanish guitar" is a likely search term and so definitely should not be deleted.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After consideration, I agree that a redirect is probably the best thing to do--Marshall is right, it is a very valid search term. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep unless Provocateur can produce some sources that make a case to redirect to classical guitar. I don't like the idea of deleting an article that would surely pass a notability test just because it has some potentially poor content. The solution is to correct the factual errors and not delete the article all together. Furthermore, with no sources given for either side of the arguement I don't see how anyone can in good conscience support either position. We shouldn't be making an un-informed content decision and blindly accept one editor's point of view. At this point, the best thing to do is tag the article for original research and not to delete it. Hopely Provocateur or another editor can then come along and make a decent article out of it. To some up "an ill-informed decision is a bad decision".Nrswanson (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's making an ill-informed decision? I'm certainly not.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that "Spanish guitar" is not only a likely search term but also a "likely article" even if it does currently have bad content; a fact which nobody has proven to my satisfaction. The content could be accurate for all we know since nobody has presented any sources confirming or denying the content. I think anybody arguing for deletion based on content reasons is drawing on an assumption based only on the point of view/personal opinion of the nominator. That is an ill-informed decision. Meanwhile, an internet search on google brings up 10,000s of sites which include buisnesses that only sell Spanish guitars, Spanish guitar conferences, Spanish guitar sheet music, Spanish guitar CD recordings, etc. This seems to me like a topic that deserves its own page.Nrswanson (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that but the question is who has the burden of proof. Is it for other people to prove the article has bad content, or is it for us to prove it's good?  Wikipedia has a policy on that called WP:BURDEN.  It says that unreferenced material should be cut mercilessly.  Therefore the default assumption is that this unreferenced material has to go.  The only way to change that is to provide verifiable references from reliable sources that supports this article being retained.
 * Even if this is done, the new material has to be substantially different from the material in classical guitar because we don't want a lot of articles that say the same thing. JulesH was pointing out (in Wikipedia shorthand) that the material in spanish guitar wouldn't be different enough to the material in classical guitar to warrant having two separate articles.  And I agree with him, which is why I suggested the redirect.
 * Does that make sense?-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Point to think about We also have an article called Flamenco guitar.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly does make sense but on the other hand we have tags such as Template:Unreferenced and Template:Original research which to my mind would have been more appropriate measures to take before taking this to an AFD. Further, although I wouldn't consider this an authorative source, this article claims that the Spanish guitar pre-dates the classical guitar. I am trying to find some more reliable sources on the topic as we speak. What this article really needs is some people with good music related sources to come along and fix it up, not delete it. I say tag it until the article is fixed.Nrswanson (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a benefit of the redirect vote. The AfD will continue to run, because that's established procedure; but if the outcome is a redirect, then the article gets redirected to classical guitar while you build up your article on spanish guitar.  Once you have good, referenced material, you can replace the redirect with your own page (you don't need to ask the admin or anything, you can just do it; if someone reverts your edit, we can take it to the talk page to build consensus).
 * If you'd like to do this, I'll help you.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Classical guitar page - good idea. Changed my mind.Provocateur (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2009 (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.