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 Guitarist#Notable guitarists. T. Canens (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitarists considered the greatest[edit]

List of guitarists considered the greatest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Cruft list is a near-to-full duplication of a section already found in the Guitarist article. Misrepresentation of the list content in the title as it might be List of guitarists who have been included in print media top ten lists. Also note that the inclusion of the Rolling Stone section duplicated content from an article about the magazine issue which has been previously AfD'd from Wikipedia due to a copyvio issue over re-printing the contents of the Rolling Stone list. Wiki libs (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Guitarist#Notable guitarists. --King Öomie 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and restore to this version [1] that was kept by consensus before. After the original keep, we've had two people who took it upon themselves to make a redirect to Guitarist, and another one who decided to "update" it [2] by trying to make it look identical to the section of Guitarist. I see no reason for doing that. Mandsford 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key difference between the two is the longer table, which really isn't necessary. Why should that list be given priority above the many similar lists (and for the record, I think the Rolling Stone one should be trimmed too). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Guitarists. I don't think there can be enough content to support a page. Once you ignore thbe lists, there isn't much, and I see no reason why that information can't be placed elsewhere. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no merge. The whole section of Guitarist#Notable guitarists was copied from this list into the article Guitarist by User:Dr. Blofeld[3] after he voted for deleting in the last nomination [4]. Therefore, it can not be considered a near-to-full duplication of a section already found in the Guitarist article (and it also violates Wikipedia's old copyright policy because Dr. Blofeld didn't mention the original author(s) when merging contents into the article Guitarist). Moreover, this article is well sourced, well written, similar to List of films considered the worst. Lastly, it would be a good example of a NPOV inherently subjective list of the article Guitar or Guitarist.--AM ^(talk) 04:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.

• Redirect/Merge' - to Guitarist#Notable guitarists as per Kingoomieiii. Codf1977 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me that where Kingoomieiii's comment is. I see only a empty vote with no specific reason.--AM ^(talk) 01:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We can't have content forked from one article to another without proper attributation but if the material is already sitting comfortably in another article that had a wider context I see no point in retaining this so I support the redirect as this will address any attribution issues as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be a good idea to have an article listing the Rolling Stones 100 Greatest Guitarists, or other notable listing, or an article with multiple lists. However, this article doesn't seem to be going in that direction, or have any direction for that matter. The Original Research nature of the article name is also problematic. Thus, Delete with no prejudice towards recreation with a proper name and proper focus. --PinkBull 01:36, 25 June 2010 (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.