Talk:Death of Jimi Hendrix

This should be merged with main article

There is a long article on Jimi Hendrix, which covers his death. There is really no need for a separate article. No matter how famous or "great" he was, Hendrix was just a musician with a short career, and then died. His death was not historically significant, like that of Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy. The world went on as before. If there are questions about the death itself, okay, put that in a section of the main article. This article is far too long and smacks of fan worship or controversy for its own sake. He took drugs. he died. That's the whole story, isn't it?Chagallophile (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason; the main article already exceeds WP:SIZE, and uses Summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

But is the death of Jimi Hendrix itself so important it is worthy of a separate article? If so, why?Chagallophile (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully you are familiar with WP:N; if not, then perhaps it is best not to add tags to articles that have been vetted in a review process to define Wikipedia's finest work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chagallophile: I was going to say "yes" it's worthy but, I just noticed Joplin has just a section, I think both deaths are equally notable, maybe Hendrix just has more information. Also, we should have this discussion in one place Mlpearc (open channel) 23:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"One of the most influential guitarists of the 1960s"

That's like calling Hitler one of the most controversial political figures of the 1940s. There's no shortage of sources rightfully calling him the most influential guitarist of all time. Why use such an understatement? Kaldari (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)