Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guitar moves

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. Natgoo 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar moves

Despite the obvious good faith in its creation, the article is unmaintainable. It has references for only a handful of the listed moves, making the rest apparently from author experience. Furthermore, few reliable sources on the subject could possibly exist. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and while a comprehensive list of stage moves certainly has a place somewhere on the Internet, this is not it. Deltabeignet 13:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. References for the moves are certainly possible, given a good going-over by a rock critic, and I think you underestimate the availability of reliable sources of rock-and-roll history. --Phanatic 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Has a real problem with verifiability, but is also quite interesting so I'm tempted to WP:IAR. Jefffire 14:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Its kinda silly, but a lot of work has been put into it, and its somewhat interesting in a Spinal Tap sort of way. GuBu 15:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly not the most 'necessary' of all articles, but interesting nonetheless. --Rehcsif 15:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I feel bad that I think this should be deleted, given the amount of work put into it, but I can't help but think that the listed moves are not coherent and unified enough to be actual moves worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, when in reality moves such as the "Duckwalk" have probably been done a couple times in different variations within the last 50 years without coming at all near the point of the Moonwalk or something like it. It also seems that many of the titles of the guitar moves are made up because they lack an actual name. Why do they lack an actual name? My guess is that it is the author who identified the move as a distinct and notable entity. It seems that any interesting motion performed by a guitarist is likely to end up on this list, and I just can't see being good for our encyclopedia. AdamBiswanger1 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is a referative work and sheds the light on lots things in rock-n-roll history. Certainly, it's not in the best condition now: lots of unreferenced info around, lots of "made up" titles, broken formatting, etc. I'm trying to tidy it up, generally, it following ways:

1. Titles should be either clear, known to everyone (referenced, not made up) names of moves, or just bare descriptions (for example, I doubt that "Playing behind the back" can be named otherwise or it's not clear for everyone what this title refers to)
2. Move description should include clear and brief descriptions of actions involved and refer to particular persons. A good reference is a photo or short animation of a person doing it.
3. Move should include description of famous performers of this particular one, an inventor (if applicable), history of development of move, info on various variations, info on performances captured on video.
4. Article should be fixed to use neutral, encyclopedic tone, without using "you do so and so" and that kind of language.

Guitar moves are pretty popular, has its traditions and long history. While current metal bands may thrash the whole scene and it looks pretty average, aggressive and extreme moves in 1950-60s looked really shocking. As for obscurity of the material - we have articles such as air guitar or juggling that also list various moves and techniques and even whole categories such as Category:Juggling patterns and tricks. Also, the article can be a good source for beginner performer to find some interesting thoughts to spice up his performance. --GreyCat 17:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Provided that each "move" is sourced. These sources just shouldn't mention a performer specifically performing the actions associated with a "move", but must describe it as a "move" or some variation thereof. As it is, unsourced ones should probably be removed until sourced. Wickethewok 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - May need some clean-up per WP:V, but many of the moves are historic and easily documented guitar performance techniques (e.g. Townshend's "windmill" and Berry's "duck walk"). -MrFizyx 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons stated above. Could use some clean up and more referencing for sure, but there's good faith that it will eventually be worked into a better article. --SevereTireDamage 23:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but raises some interesting questions. For example, can a photo be used as a source? Unsources entries really need to be removed.--Aguerriero (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is rather important than useless. It is true that there are some moves in rock and roll world, or music industry in general. However it is very possible that the names of the moves and the definition were not come from reliable sources. For this issue, the article just need to be improved, not deleted. - Imoeng 10:51, 25 July 2006 (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.