Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of soft rock musicians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. The last two keep !votes were based on WP:USEFUL, but the delete !votes were not convincing enough to establish a consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of soft rock musicians[edit]
- List of soft rock musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unsourced and unreferenced list that does not show why the bands listed are considered notable (aside, presumably, from their inclusion on wikipedia) and is entirly subjective as to what someone would consider "soft rock". BlueSquadronRaven 21:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Lists of performers by genre are usually acceptable. Unlike the many other division of rock, I think "soft rock" can easily be verified by something as simple as checking Allmusic or some other (semi-)reputable music source. It's not like "soft rock" is as subjective a genre classification as are some of the sub-sub-subsets of punk rock. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sourcing is the key, as is vigilance to ensure that fans/antifans don't use it as a repository for personal preferences. Allmusic is regarded as being pretty reliable on genres for our purposes, and per WP:EGG and WP:V, each entry should be substantiated by a WP:RS, as is, say, each entry at List of honorific titles in popular music. The latter article may tend to be a bit of a snakepit, but the rationale for the article has been successfully defended on a number of occasions, and so should this be. The fact that it may need some TLC shouldn't rule it's usefulness out. Rodhullandemu 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case it becomes the POV of Allmusic. Any way you look at this, it does not satisfy WP:NPOV.--BlueSquadronRaven 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong test; AllMusic aren't necessarily definitive, but there are plenty of other sources around, e.g. Rolling Stone, Q, and others. However, whereas multiple reliable sources are regarded as requirements for notability, when it comes to opinions, neutrality policy suggests we cite those available from the reliable sources and leave it up to our readers to make up their own minds. To do otherwise might be considered as an assumption that our readers are lacking in that faculty, and that is not the function of an encyclopedia. Rodhullandemu 23:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I think you have misinterpreted WP:NPOV. The exact quote you are referring to is "Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." The problem here is that there are no facts. There is only the editorial POV of whatever source you are using to decide what category to pigeonhole a particular artist into and/or the whim of an editor who might put Def Leppard in this category based on the notion that many of their biggest hits are ballads, and found one site to back him up on it. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPOV has little application here; that policy relates to opinions, not definitions; a list, which is what we are talking about here, is not a debate. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of such debates. We report what reliable sources say, and contrary opinions, if they exist, giving due weight to the balance of opinion. In a list, we don't do that, particularly in a list such as this when a band has either been reliably described as soft rock, or it has not. That's the bottom line, and I see little scope for negotiation. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply put, the criteria for inclusion in this list is far too subjective, even among sources. Just as the list stands now I can imagine plenty of debate as to whether or not John Denver belongs here. If a particular band has been categorized as soft rock, that's for inclusion in the article about the band (along with whatever else that band has been categorized as), not a PoV based list. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If a particular band has been categorized as soft rock", there should be a reliable source for that; if so, why should the very same source not be used in this list? Please try to retain intellectual consistency here. Rodhullandemu 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply put, the criteria for inclusion in this list is far too subjective, even among sources. Just as the list stands now I can imagine plenty of debate as to whether or not John Denver belongs here. If a particular band has been categorized as soft rock, that's for inclusion in the article about the band (along with whatever else that band has been categorized as), not a PoV based list. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPOV has little application here; that policy relates to opinions, not definitions; a list, which is what we are talking about here, is not a debate. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of such debates. We report what reliable sources say, and contrary opinions, if they exist, giving due weight to the balance of opinion. In a list, we don't do that, particularly in a list such as this when a band has either been reliably described as soft rock, or it has not. That's the bottom line, and I see little scope for negotiation. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I think you have misinterpreted WP:NPOV. The exact quote you are referring to is "Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." The problem here is that there are no facts. There is only the editorial POV of whatever source you are using to decide what category to pigeonhole a particular artist into and/or the whim of an editor who might put Def Leppard in this category based on the notion that many of their biggest hits are ballads, and found one site to back him up on it. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong test; AllMusic aren't necessarily definitive, but there are plenty of other sources around, e.g. Rolling Stone, Q, and others. However, whereas multiple reliable sources are regarded as requirements for notability, when it comes to opinions, neutrality policy suggests we cite those available from the reliable sources and leave it up to our readers to make up their own minds. To do otherwise might be considered as an assumption that our readers are lacking in that faculty, and that is not the function of an encyclopedia. Rodhullandemu 23:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is already. But why can't a list and a category overlap? I see no reason not to. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because (a) this particular list adds NO content and serves NO purpose beyond what can be handled by the category. Some lists, for example, tables of cities in a region with a table of population, are useful for sorting. Other lists might be sorted/arranged in useful ways, such as by Taxonomy, e.g. Chat (bird). This list is just a list. (b) now we have duplication of purpose by list and category and both must be maintained, and are not done so automatically...leading either to inconsistency, or more work to maintain them. In short, nothing is gained and a lot lost, by keeping this page. Cazort (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My thoughts exactly, Cazort. Yintaɳ 21:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP The list serves a useful purpose.--DunkinDonutBoy ([[User
talk:DunkinDonutBoy|talk]]) 04:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- KEEP Found the list quite helpful even as an indexed list by genre—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.226.156 (talk) 06:55, May 14, 2009— 216.66.226.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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.