Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Romantic artists (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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 20:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Romantic artists[edit]

Article is a list that lacks sources or consensus and is largely WP:OR. In fact, it's more casual opinion than OR. Users adding to the list tend not to understand what the "New Romantic" movement actually was and the list merely becomes a compilation of early 1980s bands, most of whom were nothing at all to do with the New Romantic movement. A similar article was already deleted some time ago for the same reasons, and I would recommend Delete for this one too. Kookoo Star (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This would appear to be a content dispute. There being a New Romantic musical genre, a list of its adherents is a proper subject (and not redundant to a category, either). - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New Romantic, like all music genres, means different things to different people, and there's going to be debates about who belongs in the list. Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "New Romantic" was not a musical genre, it was a fashion movement that was adopted by certain British pop acts of the early 1980s - but their music is not necessarily similar in style, so it can't be considered a musical genre. To consider it a genre means that the list is inherently flawed from the start. To say that it means different things to different people is merely advocating its misuse and will only perpetuate incorrect definitions. The Wiki article about the New Romantic movement is more than enough, we don't need a list that is 90% wrong as well. GoldCoaster (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying it was a fashion movement instead of a music genre, that doesn't sound like a reason to delete. There's no reason why we can't cover fashion movements within the music industry, i.e. glam rock, hair metal, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that once it is established that New Romanticism was a fashion movement and not a music genre, then almost all of the artists on the list will have to be taken off it. Visage (or rather Steve Strange), Boy George (not Culture Club), Marilyn, Duran and perhaps Spandau Ballet are the only ones that will remain (and even their involvement with the movement was fleeting because, to quote Nick Rhodes, it was all over within 18 months). The rest of the list are just synthpop or New Wave bands that have been shoved there because people seem to assume that New Romantics were any early 80's British pop bands who used a keyboard. Artists like Japan and The Human League have actually gone on record as saying they were nothing to do with the New Romantic movement, despite many people assuming they were. So a list of only four or five artists is not going to be worth an article by itself and will probably fail WP notability guidelines because there is already a proper article on New Romantics where these few artists could be mentioned (and in fact already are). The list really needs to be ditched.GoldCoaster (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge/Smerge to New Romantic (which is a short enough article to fit it in). There's nothing wrong with the concept of this article that some decent sourcing wouldn't cure. AndyJones (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur that "New Romantic" was not a musical genre, the genre is synthpop. New Romantic was a label for a fashion/social movement originating and predominant in UK 1980-1983. The problem lies in that the media applied the label to certain music acts that dressed in the fashion of the period regardless of their musical style or whether they were actually associated to the movement. This especially applies to the US in a more pronounced way and the media there will use that label to any New Wave, Synthpop Act 1982-1989 often completely erroneously.This list illustrates the problems in a nut shell, it has been created with completely incorrect information. There is an argument that there aren’t any New Romantic Bands in the purest sense, that those who actually were eg Duran Duran only embraced the movement for commercial reasons. Visage is one of the only bands on that list that actually belong there. If the basic subject is so unstable/open to interpretation, there is no point in having a list that will be mostly incorrect and constantly subject to content disputes. andi064 ^{T . C} 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More like 1982-1983. Synthpop bands of the late 80s were usually just called "techno" or "technopop" until the word techno became associated with the rave crowd. New Romantic usually implies an earlier type of synthpop that had a certain visual style associated with it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you account for Adam & The Ants, who weren't synthpop at all. Neither were Culture Club for that matter (they were "white reggae" when they first arrived). New Romantic is not a musical genre.Kookoo Star (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.This so-called article/list is a complete disaster and shouldn't even exist. There is already a New Romantic article and that should be more than sufficient. As already stated, New Romantic was not a style of music, it was a fashion movement. The fashion was certainly adopted by certain musicians in the early 1980s, and this is why many people confuse it with being a musical genre. A list of the musicians who adopted the style would not warrant a separate article (it would be like having a list of all singers who had afro hairstyles...it just isn't relevant enough and does not necessarily suggest they made the same type of music), but they can easily be mentioned on the main New Romantic article page itself. People often get confused by the term "New Romantic", but whenever you hear something like "the new romantic band Visage...." it is referring to their style of dress, not their style of music. Some of the more famous New Romantics weren't even pop stars (Phillip Salon, Leigh Bowery, etc), and there weren't really enough pop star New Romantics to make a decent list out of which is why this article should be deleted. To keep it also invites edit-warring because, as we have seen, so many people misunderstand what "New Romantic" actually was.MassassiUK (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templatize Make the article a template of romance artists and remove it after wards.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a perfectly good topic for a list, but a lot of the entries currently on it are wrong and it needs cleaning up. --Michig (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "New Romantic" was not a musical genre. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a genre - I remember it all too well. This provides some evidence. The list should be restricted to bands that have a reliable source describing them as New Romantic. If that happens, I don't see a problem with it.--Michig (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a music genre. You might well remember the fashions that certain people who happened to be musicians wore, but that doesn't make it a music genre. There was an interview with The Human League on the UK Channel 4's Top 10 Electro Bands programme in 2001 where they absolutely, totally denied being anything to do with the New Romantic movement. Japan have gone on record as saying the same thing. If I cant find an online link to it, I'm going to upload it onto You Tube just so everyone here can see. It blows a huge hole in the All Music Guide article you linked to (which is not necessarily written by an authority on the subject).79.66.57.7 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Human league were never a New Romantic band, and their denying that they were makes no difference.--Michig (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this taken from The Virgin Encylopedia of Eighties Music. Really if reliable sources say that New Romantic was a genre (or even a 'movement') and that bands were 'New Romantic', that should be good enough to have this list here.--Michig (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the validity of the link you gave because its just to a fan site purporting to give a transcript from the Virgin Encycolpedia and not the genuine article, however if you read the first paragraph it on that page it really does emphasise just how misunderstood the term "New Romantic" was and how wishy-washy it's definition to most people seems to be (blame the early 80s media for this). If anything, it certainly devalues it as a musical genre, which is what you are claiming it was. I have no problem with a New Romantic article, but I dont think an additional list that will be mostly wrong is doing Wikipedia any favours. I've also just found this that people might find interesting. Its not necessarily a valid link either but its certainly a bit enlightening. 79.66.57.7 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why people are getting so hung up on whether or not New Romantic is a genre. The list simply states that it is a list of New Romantic bands and solo artists.--Michig (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because once it is correctly established that it was a fashion movement and not a musical genre, the nature of that list will change dramatically and almost all of the artists on it will have to be taken off. What's left would be no more than five artists and that in itself is not worthy of an article/list by itself as they can already mentioned in the main New Romantic article. That is the whole point of this discussion, and please try to remember that nobody is proposing we ditch the main New Romantic article itself (although that itself could do with a serious clean-up).GoldCoaster (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but there are more like 12 on the list at the moment that I believe belong there and can be sourced. I would agree that that number could be accommodated in the New Romantic article, but there may be more to add, e.g. that dodgy band that Ricky Gervais used to be in (Seona Dancing). I wouldn't object to this list being merged to New Romantic.--Michig (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Human League it is quite correct that they were never part of the New Romantic scene and have said so frequently. Philip Oakey’s style was borrowed from the Glam Rock of Brian Eno and predates the NRs by some 4 years. The THL girls Susan Ann Sulley and Joanne Catherall in 1980/1 were Futurists/ Numanoids (after Gary Numan) and get quite offended if they are called NR. It is solely the ill informed media that label them NR, quite erroneously. If you cannot define a ‘thing’ then you cannot have an encyclopedic list of that ‘thing’. New Romantic bands did exist but were NR because of their social association, not musical style or clothes. They were very few and had mostly died out by 1983 as did the movement, except in the eyes of the media. New Romantics are like the Mafia, anyone can say they are, but in the same way only Sicilians can be true Mafioso. Only a very small number of people were actually New Romantics because of their association in a very insular social scene in London 1980 -1983.andi064 ^{T . C} 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I'm not sure what the big hatred of lists is lately, but I can't think of any valid reason for deletion. It was a notable genre, and if the list can be filled with notable artists (cited that they were in the genre, of course), then there's no reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hatred of lists as such, just a hatred of deeply inaccurate ones.79.66.57.7 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NR not primarily a music genre, and open to far more media misinterpretation - and therefore public ignorance - now than it was at the time. Contemporarily known and acknowledged NR groups were very small in number and are adequately covered on the main NR page already. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2008 (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.