Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gibson players

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.

I was just struck by Buster's comment and went to see that there have been 7,593 edits to this page over its lifetime. I'm not sure if it was deleted and there was a Deletion review, whether or not a regular admin could even restore this page so editors could review it. This wasn't the primary factor in my close but I'd like there to be a stronger consensus to Delete this article before removing such a long-standing article from the project despite its shortcomings. It would be nice if some of our editors who focus on contemporary music and guitarists could spend some time improving this 17 year old list article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gibson players

List of Gibson players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is just a list of commercial endorsements, therefore violates

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music. Justiyaya 04:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's not really any policies about this (other than this particular instance much failing
  WP:NLIST), but I would agree with removing all "Players" sections or mentions from musical instrument companies unless that person's endorsement has been incredibly important to the company (e.g., they have a major model with the company like Les Paul with Gibson or they're Ringo Starr who catapulted Ludwig to world fame). Why? I Ask (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The NLIST requirement is met by publications such as The Gibson Electric Guitar Book: Seventy Years of Classic Guitars (2007,
  ISBN 9780879308957) which documents the guitar players along with various Gibson guitar models, and by Billboard magazine's online list of "11 Guitarists Who Rock Gibson Guitars, From Chuck Berry to Dave Grohl". There's also the GuitarGuitar list of "Top Ten Les Paul Players of All Time" (a Gibson model) and NDTV's list of "5 Guitarists Who Helped Make Gibson An Iconic Guitar Brand". Whatever problems may be seen at the article right now are not because the list is not supported by sources. Binksternet (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I disagree. While it's certainly fine to add a brief mention on the

  WP:NLIST, in my opinion; often clickbait slideshows with very little encyclopedic value). We could have a list of drivers that use Ford [1] or people that enjoy Supreme merch [2] if that was our criteria for such lists. And yeah, a book dedicated to Gibson is going to list players and their axe of choice. Modern Drummer always has spreads of what famous drummers are playing what. Hell, there are even books of it [3]. But it would be a dark day on Wikipedia if List of Mapex players was created. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Perhaps your concern should be aimed at the NLIST criteria. I don't see why evidence that the list is found in multiple forms in the media is somehow not sufficient for this list article to meet NLIST. I found another archived list by Mixdown magazine: "The 13 most iconic Gibson Les Paul players of all time". The fact that the media is interested in making lists of this sort is enough evidence for me. Binksternet (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists get views and media knows this. It's why WatchMojo was so popular. Nice digestible information to waste your time on, but not encyclopedic. Wikipedia's list guidelines overlook a lot of context; it's our job to use common sense. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As mentioned before, this list violates
  WP:NOT. The existence of Gibson players may be mentioned in the Gibson article. The list is for the company to carry. gidonb (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Reliable independent sources exist, enough to justify an article. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per StarryNightSky11; there are enough independent sources for the article to be justified. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as some of the opinions expressed here are not put forth very strongly. Of course, a closer can close this discussion at any time they see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've got a few concerns here, none of them minor, but none disqualifying. 1) There's a vast number of unsourced assertions applied to the page, scores of CN tags, including those about living people. 2) Of the three criteria used to determine qualification for the list, all three of them seems to have a subjective component (long and faithful, historical importance, contributed significantly). 3) While the three stated criteria seem to narrow this field a bit, this list doesn't seem to be truly defining. Gibson started making guitars in 1902; perhaps hundreds of thousands of humans can claim honestly to be "Gibson players." With over 7,500 revisions I can see a long history of insertion and reversion of players of various and debatable qualification. I should admit this is not my field of study. BusterD (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2023 (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.