Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British pop musicians of the 1930s

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 concensus. I withdraw. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of British pop musicians of the 1930s[edit]

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

See wp:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC, WP:SALAT, etc. I'm not sure, but I think pop wasn't invented until the 1950's. We already have category:British pop musicians so we can tag entries into the relevant or new categories. In List of British pop musicians of the 2000s, Most of the entries could be classified as rock and not necessarily pop (although some people say rock is a subgenre of pop and vice versa), so a title called List of British rock musicians of the 2000s may be somewhat more suitable. British pop music is only a combination of "British" and "pop" (but unlike Arabic pop or K-pop which are established subgenres). The inclusion criteria is not clear : How do you define a "pop musician"? Do they have to be born In Britain? And how are the decades contributing to the whole mess? Is it "born in the 1930s", "active in the 1930s", or maybe "living in the 1930s"?... See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli rock artists which I recently nominated. I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason:

--Maashatra11 (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - inclusion criterion not clear. What the heck is "performers and genres" (why the and genres really)? For the British pop of 19xx, how is the period chosen (because some performers span decades, by longevity or by pure chance of starting in the late parts of a decade onto the next)? And Australian rock and pop musicians born overseas is about as unencyclopedic crosscategorization as it gets.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and consider individually if there is a deletion rationale for them. This omnibus nomination is too broad and covers too many items, which are not all functionally identical. The original deletion rationale is also unclear. Lists and categories are not redundant, so it doesn't really matter that there are categories that could cover the same articles. Renaming some of these lists (though not all) and improving the inclusion criteria should be a simple enough task. Kate (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not supposed to have only two voting choices (keep or delete). You can say which to keep and which to delete. Also, I'm not saying that lists are redundant to the categories, I'm saying that the lists are redundant per se. British is not clear, Pop is not clear, and 1930's is not clear. We could include every musician or group that that can claim some level of popularity and "Britishness" and then you would see how redundant these lists are. The same is true for all of the other bundled articles. Please see WP:CSL. - sometimes there are subjects that may be inappropriate for a SA list, but not as a category. Maashatra11 (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:Bundle Kate (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. I think I know that already. Nothing particular there, merely examples. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Also, please see the article on pop music. Pop music is not simply music that is popular. That may clear up some apparent confusion here. Currently, these lists do not include every popular British musician - for example, Tito Burns was wildly popular in the 1940s, but is not included in the list, because he wasn't a pop musician. Kate (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw The Who in one of those lists. If you think The Who is pop, I really don't know what pop is for you. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:BEBOLD and take The Who off the list if you don't think it belongs. Kate (talk)

I think being called "pop" is subjective opinion because the term itself is not clearly defined and is as broad a it can get. That's the whole problem. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a lot of entries in the lists which I have doubts whether they should be considered pop or not. Because pop is such a broad and vague term, every "list of pop musicians" is inherently redundant. It's harmless in the category context because it's in categories' nature to join two broad main topics together, such as, for example category:English footballers. If we made a list called List of English footballers, I think the Wikipedia servers would crash. Even if it was organized in alphabetical order. And even then, it would be an unnecessary list, because there would be lengthy pages for unrelated footballers, better classified under their team, or whatever, but not under their "nationality". Cheers, Maashatra11 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop musicians aren't footballers, ergo that's irrelevant. Please see WP:WAX Kate (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that. It was just an example of a list to avoid. And I also added an explanation why, which I doubt you have read. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read it. I just don't agree with your deletion rationale. Kate (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You said "Renaming some of these lists (though not all) and improving the inclusion criteria should be a simple enough task." I agree there might be an alternate option to deleting, but I currently cannot see how, and I would be very grateful to you if you could elaborate on the exact actions that should be taken , because as far I can see, there's a sense of agreement that something ought to be done with the articles anyway and their present state is not very good. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the usual first step in improvement is either simply doing it, or if there's an active community of editors working on the page, to take it up on the talk page and hash it out.Kate (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you know what to do in order to improve them, please do it. My opinion is that they are useless for the moment and there's no grounds for improving. If you can make substantial changes that will address my concerns, I'd be happy to help making them better articles. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly fine inclusion criteria for these lists (it's obvious that it means active in that decade). Suggest merging the 1930s and 1940s into one article (pre-1950s, or something similar in title). Lugnuts (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address the concerns I raised. Which inclusion criteria? Maashatra11 (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion about each of the articles, for example List of Australian rock and pop musicians born overseas? Maashatra11 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every person that voted here agrees that the articles' current state is unsatisfactory and a change should be made. A debate about which changes and how (here or somewhere else) and subsequent resolutions would be helpful. Secondly, considering the fact that the pop music term wasn't invented until the late 1950's, how can this article even exist? Maashatra11 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redudant comment. The term Industrial music didn't exist prior to 1976, but the music existed before then, for example. Lugnuts (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean pre-industrial music? Or music who preceded industrial? Which bands for example? If they're considered industrial, it's only after 1976. But let's leave it, we talk about pop music here. If the pop music genre didn't exist prior to the 50s, you can't say you have a list of pop musicians from the 30s. It's simply wrong. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even the article shows that the term pop song comes from the 1920s. This is a mis-guided group nomination (IE trying to apply the same criteria against all these articles). Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment re: List of South Korean teen idol musical bands - just prior to the nomination I had done a first sweep attempt to clean up the article, including inserting a more objective criteria. I am not familiar at all with K-pop music to determine if my new definition would actually be meaninful/workable/encyclopedic and there was only 1 feedback comment so far which appears mostly to be in response to this afd rather than the inclusion criteria and general clean up.

In general, I am not yet convinced that List versions of any of these topics provides meaningful organization to the data that isnt better handled by categories. Active Banana (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What keeps you away from voting? You have a standpoint. :) Maashatra11 (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh - the Afd has just begun! I have noted my concerns and will see if anyone can convince me otherwise! Active Banana (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of South Korean teen idol musical bands - What I think that this list does not help me too much either. I usually go to Category:Korean musical groups. But this list allows me to see which band debuted first and when it disbanded in comparison to OTHER bands. For example: which band had comparatively more members? etc. So I think this list should not be deleted because it is useful when it comes to comparison. Although, the column of references and notes (the one with a lot of 'citation needed tags') should really go away as readers could go to the individual articles of bands from the given links. Also, since it serves as a portal to all k-pop articles. On other thought, we could involve other korea based editors in improvement of this list, since they would know better sources than us obviously. Almost all the bands listed have their own individual articles with links provided, this is not a too bad list. It helps when it comes to comparison since nobody wants to jump from article to article only for sake of comparing who debuted first. It is not a too short or a too long list either. Also it does carry the criteria. Farjad0322 (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2010 (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.