Ugh. I generally don't like to be negative, but this topic is a bit of a bug for me. I'm not sure we can say any of the people mentioned are virtuosos really. They certainly may be. However, there really is a lack of information to make that determination. Moreover, the designation, even when warranted, is but one, of many, attributes of great musical performances.
A number of things
1) The hyper focus on "virtuosity" is a bit of an odd thing. Indeed breathtaking performances and skills are rewarding, and the extremely hard work that goes into them is very much worthy of respect. However, what often impresses is a set of surface details. This is certainly not to discount the importance of technique, nor the hard work that goes into it. However, "virtuoso" is often exclaimed -particularly in the case of guitar - when people haven't had the opportunity to listen with enough depth and breadth. To be clear, I DO NOT mean that the listener(s) are not able, in the most basic sense of ability, more that the commentary is on one aspect that impresses, without much regard for other aspects of a performer, or how he or she stands relative to peers (in a fairly strict sense). Which brings me to...
2) With a number of the players mentioned (several I'm not familiar with), you have very high calibre musicians, with a very high level of technical proficiency. Indeed, things to respect and learn from. No question. However, because, sadly, the broad level of training on the electric guitar isn't particularly high, those who have trained rigorously will stand out. And again, such hard work and training is worthy of respect and reward. However, if you take the cello, or piano, as examples, you have literally thousands of performers who reach an extremely high level of technical and musical proficiency. There is a long, and evolving, canonical history of training that many choose to pursue. So, you can take pieces like the Bach Cello Suites, or Chopin Etudes, for example, and compare hundreds, if not thousands of performances, all of which will be performed with extremely high levels of skill, training, and musicianship - requiring years of blood, sweat and sacrifice - and without question the majority of the performers would not be called "virtuosos", by any consensual definition of the term (which is of course subjective, to large extent). Indeed, these pieces are extremely difficult - both technically and with regards to challenges of interpretation - and anyone who plays them, has done hard work, worthy of admiration. However, any student who graduates a top conservatory, on one of those instruments will be able to learn, and perform those works with a very high level of skill. To the experienced listener, however, brilliance will be, generally, readily distinguishable from excellence. And to be clear, I'm in NO WAY deriding excellence. Unfortunately, we really don't have a similar culture, and pool of players, on the electric guitar. Moreover, we really don't have an, at least partially, common repertoire with which to help distinguish amongst very high level players. I say unfortunately, however, the the truth is (at least in my opinion), that this fact comes with it's upsides too. Not least of which the sheer number of non-professionals who enthusiastically play, practice, study, perform, share, etc. Though I don't have any data to back it up, it strikes me that the electric guitar distinguishes itself, culturally, in this regard; an my hypothesis, that the lack of centuries of dogma, and more recently, conservatory strain, is one reason for that. So, as with many things, there are trade offs
3) Even in musical arenas where the concept of "virtuoso" is a bit more clear, the focus is all to often (though certainly not always) on a sort of physical impressiveness and ease, in addition to youth. And in some regards, that is fair. However, the acknowledged virtuoso is not always going to be the one giving the performance that stuns people to their cores. The "coloratura" is a good example - and I'm not calling them out to belittle any coloraturas out there. Not every great singer can do with their voices what a coloratura can; regardless of practice effort. Moreover, the music that is composed for them, is designed to take advantage of a specific, relatively rare, skill, and dazzle audiences with it. This often works (though, it can sound often sound, to many (myself included), akin to exacto-blades, being stuffed in one's ears; particularly in the case of sopranos). However, I would be very, very surprised if many people would consider such performances amongst their most deeply powerful musical experiences. I may certainly be wrong, but I'd be surprised.
So... TL/DR - I don't think we can say who, if any, of the players mentioned, or to be mentioned, is a "virtuoso" (not enough information); though some may certainly be. And, frankly, too much focus on that concept misses the point. If you love that person's playing and music, does it really matter whether he or she is in that rarified club?? I, personally, don't think so. Moreover, I'd be very surprised if, say for example, Yo Yo Ma, focuses on and puts laser focus on "virtuosos" when he listens to performers. I don't know the guy, so I could very well be wrong, and he might, but I rather doubt it