Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ibanez 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.

The result was keep. Changes to the article following the deletion nomination (particularly [1] and [2]) largely address the reasons for deletion. Kudos to Deon Steyn and The wub for their efforts. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ibanez players

Contested prod. Zero context or verification, permanently incomplete, inclusion criteria vague. Just another "intersection by location" bare list. Deiz talk 09:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - List appears to have been brought in line with list guidelines and the Telecaster featured list. I would not have nominated the list in its revised form, suggest disgregarding opinions voiced prior to 7 September. Deiz talk 03:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the page merely to remove clutter from the original Ibanez article so – if only technically – I am the author. There is an entire category of these pages Category:Lists of guitarists (players of brand x or y), including List of Telecaster players which was a Wikipedia:Featured lists. Should this list's content and intro only be improved to a similar standard as List of Telecaster players as it well can be, instead of deleted? Deon Steyn 09:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telecaster players is an excellent list, beyond being guitar related lists they have nothing in common. I've also split off bare lists from main articles and am happy to see them deleted if no-one cares to improve them. Is it possible to make a good list out of this? Sure.. clear inclusion criteria, intro, sources, context for each entry.. if your prod removal had alluded to any of that we might not be here. Deiz talk 10:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like I said earlier, I'm not too familiar with AfD arguments, hence the hamfisted "prod removal" edit comment :-) But my alternative was to do nothing and lose the list, which as it turns out as the potential to become something like the featured list. There are about 7 or 8 of these player/brand lists, half good like the Tele one and half bad. How now brown cow? put a "major edit" notice on top and hack it into shape like the Tele list? Deon Steyn 14:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List is completely unsourced / original research. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of Telecaster players is extensively sourced, has descriptions for every player and is well organized. This list has none of those characteristics- it's indiscriminate, unorganized, scantily detailed, and doesn't even have the model of guitars played by each player. TheLetterM 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay, the page has been completely revamped. It now looks exactly like the List of Telecaster players page and lists only those players that are notable and definitely associated by Ibanez (they all play signature models carrying their name) citing their notability and association to Ibanez. Deon Steyn 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really think its over categorization to have list of people who played <instrument>. Maybe categorize? Corpx 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the difference between "list of telecaster players" and "list of Ibanez players" is that the telecaster is a model of guitar whereas the Ibanez is a brand. There must surely be countless professionals who play Ibanez guitars so I think a list such as this violates WP:NOT#DIR. Also, the topic smacks somewhat of promotion. Update: On reflection, I note there is indeed a number of other articles of this type and if this list had more selective inclusion criteria such as that at List of Gibson players I think it might be viable. In any case, I see no reason to pick on this one article and leave the rest, IMO they should all be considered for deletion together as a group or not at all. Gatoclass 02:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 days ago I would have said delete as it was simply a POV favorites list. But the new format has change my vote to keep. Peter Fleet 02:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now it's been pruned, sourced and formatted like the similar lists. I would urge users who have previously !voted to delete to take another look at the article. the wub "?!" 11:22, 11 September 2007 (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.