Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of soft rock musicians (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Consensus is that this genre is too broadly construed to have a meaningful list. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of soft rock musicians

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

I believe that the premise of the list is just too broad of a musical genre to make a viable list of. Some people will just want to list adult contemporary articles and bands here (Anne Murray), some think that folk music (Cat Stevens)) should be here, while others are apparently of the opinion that any artist who has ever released a ballad or a mellow song (The Beatles, Pink Floyd) should be here. I'm not advocating deletion simply because it is an article that will see reverts day in and day out...we deal with that all the time over at grunge music with attempts to add bands. The further down you go into sub-genres of music... List of glam rock artists, List of gangsta rap artists, etc...the easier it is to source and define. Her,e with "soft rock", it is just too vague and too poorly-defined, thus running into original research issues. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Re: OR, if reliable sources designate someone a "soft rock musician", why isn't that sufficient to include them in this list? The same answer goes for dividing soft rock from adult contemporary (note that soft rock describes the latter as being what the former developed into); if some sources describe someone as soft rock and others describe them as adult contemporary, then they could go in this list and a list of adult contemporary musicians if that existed (genre classifications are not mutually exclusive, nor definitive). If sources describe someone purely as adult contemporary, they would not go in this list. So I'm not yet seeing why any of these problems are so intractable as to merit deletion. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a different between AC and soft rock, just two terms for the same general type of music. The general thrust here is that as you climb up the scale from specific music genres to more general ones, at some point it just becomes too generalized to be of use as a list. Again, one the example above was List of gangsta rap artists. If you go a level up, is there a List of hip hop artists ? There isn't (it is a list of lists), as that would be too all-encompassing to be of any real value to the reader. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What subgenres are included within soft rock? postdlf (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of why sources are problematic on such a broad issue as this, Allmusic, generally considered in this category includes soft rock for Frank Sinatra, among others, that are equally puzzling. It seems the category is so broad it pretty much includes everything. There has been a genuine attempt to supply sourced, but it doesn't seem to be possible because of the nature of the category.--SabreBD (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I initially did look around at how other lists handled this, i.e. gangsta --> hip hop, seeing if that could be done here, but I don't think there are any real sub-genres. It's just a lump. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR Narrow & Split The list is way too broad and the number of artists that qualify for inclusion in this list are likely in the hundreds. According to Soft_rock, every notable rock band since the 1960's that is not considered hard rock would need inclusion in this list. If this list must be kept, I would suggest at least breaking it down by decade to make it more manageable and sensible. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a good illustration of original research and why there's a policy against it. The criteria for inclusion seem to be that a Wikipedia editor would say, "that's a soft rock musician", or that a Wikipedia editor listens to a "soft rock" radio station and has heard a song by this musician on the radio, or, perhaps, this is not a hard rock artist, hence it is soft rock. Billboard magazine does track this type of thing, even using the words "soft rock" in its measure of sales of adult contemporary music. However, this is a fairly useless list, with no information about an artist or group except one of those cute little flags from the Wikipedia book of stickers. What it should have is artists who can be shown to have reached #1 on the Billboard AC chart, along with the song that got them there. Mandsford 19:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OR ErrORs:

Conflation

Articles requiring editorial oversight are OR - because a rationale for inclusion must be established by editors, as it does on every article on WP, and as written in rules such as RS and V, it is OR to draw the line. Particularly prevalent on List AfDs.

General errors

A mutant hybrid of appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and slippery slope (Camel's nose, etc) I call Appeal to Incompetence, which warns that editors or readers will screw up and edit wrongly or read the articles wrongly, therefore we must save the article by destroying it.

The fundamental error in defining OR is that anything on WP is OR. It's quite simple; it has been rooted out and destroyed since day 1. It does not exist anymore. Stop trying to find it in new and original ways. Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of fancy words, but it doesn't really address the point that "soft rock" is itself a poorly-defined and very nebulous music classification, thus making for a poor list subject. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grats, you are the first person who has ever used what might very loosely be called an Argument from Ignorance in the sense that my arguments were too fancy.

Good definitions are among the things that make experts of a subject scholars. There are plenty out there; just pick the best one. Editing is what editors do. Preferably in mainspace or on the talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract assertions aren't much of a retort against specific complaints. Could you address the actual article? I'd like to see this saved, if it can be, but I'm not seeing anyone defend this as a workable genre classification for this list. postdlf (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't arguing from ignorance to point out that you didn't actually, y'know, say anything of worth. We have what is IMO a worthless list based on a too-generic genre of music. Address that argument if you're able to. Tarc (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IMO part; your categorizations of worth are only assertions. The parameters of inclusion that should be placed on the article, I have already addressed. ("Good definitions...etc")

Comment It isn't an issue of editors not being able to comprehend the nature of the list, but rather an inherit problem with the list itself. List of people who have eaten a sandwich would be a factually correct list, and would have entries that might be notable (the Subway guy, for example), but such a use would ultimately be useless due to the overreaching scope of the list's parameters. Not because we assume editors lack the ability to comprehend the list. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you shouldn't even have gone there. You have not considered the ramifications of even your rather Straw man-like argument. The Subway guy should have given it away; the list of people who have eaten a sandwich could only include him, because he is the only noteworthy sandwich eater. So it would be deleted, not due to too many entries, but to too few. Anarchangel (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notable sandwich eaters: Edward Gibbon, Hillel the Elder, John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, and those are just quickly glancing at the Sandwich article. I'm not sure you understand what Straw man means, because the only thing I commented on was your statement "editors or readers will screw up and edit wrongly or read the articles wrongly, therefore we must save the article by destroying it." which was neither stated nor implied by anyone, making your statement the Straw man argument. Nobody assumes the ignorance of editors. The problem is with the list itself being overly generic and overreaching, not with people's handling of the list. - SudoGhost (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Billy Joel argument This is classic example of Soft/Hard Rock delineation. No one dispute Piano Man (song) is classic soft rock song no one can say the same about We Didn't Start the Fire. So which is he? This is entirely subjective delineation and one not fitting for Wikipedia as only opinions work. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 22:45, 28 March 2011 (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.