Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Second British Invasion Artists

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 keep. Aside from the nom there is one editor arguing for deletion, while we have three expressing a keep sentiment (including Edkollin, who did not officially !vote), one merge, and one on the fence. There's no consensus for deletion, and the keep commenters all invoke specific sourcing provided during the AfD by Edkollin showing that the term "Second British Invasion" has had some purchase (at least in the 1980s in the U.S.) and thus might plausibly be a basis for a Wikipedia list article. Thus we end up with keep, though of course a merge remains an editorial option outside of the context of AfD, and is something that could be pursued on the talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Second British Invasion Artists[edit]

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

List based entirely on one source. The second source makes no mention of "Second British Invasion". Basically just a list of British bands that popular in the early 80's. You could make similar list for practically any era of music. Ridernyc (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a section called "Second British Invasion" in British Invasion so if it's a valid section a list seems appropriate. If not, that section should be removed, or at least renamed. Polarpanda (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused about

A. Why this list is being singled out for deletion when most lists, especially about lists music genres have no citations at all and seem to list every and any act that editors seem to think fits the particular genre.

B. Why lists exist and why there seems to be little or no standards that apply to them when compared with regular articles.

The second source was put in as a backup source for the first source. The first described the British Invasion groups that as acts that largely derived their American success from MTV. The second source listed acts that were successful in America due to MTV during the same time period but did not mention the words "British Invasion" specifically. The second source was clearly describing the same phenomenon as the first. To delete the article because the second source did not specifically say British Invasion is just as the cliché says not seeing the forest from the trees.

But the real problem and where you should be putting your cleanup efforts is trying to find out what the policy is for lists and establishing or reestablishing enforcement for those. Or maybe we should do without lists at all. I am sorry I went on and on but I am used to being criticized for trying to limit further damage to existing lists. This list was originally in the main article but moved out because me and other editors had to almost daily delete additions that did not meet the criteria for Second British Invasion as established in the article. This move seemed to help. Edkollin (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST might help answer your questions. IMO lists are needed as a way to find articles. Polarpanda (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says treat the list as a regular article but the reality (at least with popular music) is that they are an anything goes zone where Wikipedia standards don't apply. Another words the de facto consensus is for anarchy.

As for Second British Invasion since it was a phenomenon not really a genre a group will not be labeled a Second British Invasion act but a New Wave or Syhthpop or whatever genre they were. Articles about the Second British Invasion will list the top five or ten groups as examples of the phenomenon but will not give you a comprehensive lists of every Second British Invasion act of note. Edkollin (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere, please. I don't think that the term "second British invasion" ever really caught on, and for good reason. We did have an article called Second British Invasion, but it's been merged into British Invasion (which was about the wave of British rock groups that were popular in the mid-1960s). We have an equally indiscriminate List of New Wave bands and artists, and my feeling is that it would be better to attempt to make that one a better list by throwing in discriminating information about who was from the U.K., who from the U.S., and who from other nations. There's no denying that "British invasion" was a well-known term, but calling anything after that a "second British invasion" really Americocentric POV of the worst kind, isn't it? Is the point supposed to be that the history of new wave didn't begin until people in the United States started listening to it? If anything, it was more of a case of an "American invasion", with lots of U.S. groups following the path of a genre of music that was invented in the British Isles. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We go by reliable sources not what you think. There are articles and books chronicling that era by reliable sources that use the term. I would agree it is not as widely used as the original term but you do not need that type of mass recognition for it to be notable. We have articles on some fairly obscure genres.

Off Topic: Good luck with the New Wave List. I could not agree with you more about the New Wave List. That list was one I was referring to both in my questions above and my statement "de facto consensus is for anarchy". I have run in to wall after wall in even just trying to limit further damage. Edkollin (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what I think. However, if you found only two "reliable sources" that suggest that "second British invasion" caught on, that might make a difference about what other people think. The idea of comparing Eurythmics to Herman's Hermits makes me laugh. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion as to whether the the British Invasion article should be split belongs on that talk page. This is a discussion about deleting the The Second British Invasion List Article. There are two reliable sources in the British Invasion subsection that says the phenomenon existed. I'll move copy them to the list article. Edkollin (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Sourcing [1][2][3]. I believe that the additional sourcing I've shown here and added to the article plus the dozens of hits from reliable sources from back then and in this decade you will see if you go into Google News archives shows that this was a notable phenomenon. Edkollin (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with edkollin on this one (and believe me, this is rare enough to be duly noted) : most artists on this page already make part of other more inclusive and "documented" pages and for the few artists left that are not part of those pages, they'd better join them, in my opinion. Not without saying that this list of Second British Invasion bands looks rather random and poorly constructed in its present form because of the various musical genres represented by the artists chosen to sum up the invasion. Not that this Second British Invasion is not worth mentionning, of course, but maybe not worth having its own list created as it is.CouchJarvis (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion I think stems from the Second British Invasion being a phenomenon not a genre. While most Second British Invasion acts were loosely New Wave not all of them were. Eddy Grant, Musical Youth was not New Wave but had US success in this period due to MTV airplay and were British thus satisfying the criteria. Edkollin (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I think if the page is to be kept, it would be more interesting to have it organized by musical genres which would result in suppressing the "random impression" that this page about an existing phenomenon (thus deserving its page, like any other phenomenon) presently conveys. CouchJarvis (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough independent sources that make it notable Cynof Gavuf 11:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think Edkollin has found enough sources. Polarpanda (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are sufficient sources.--SabreBD (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2009 (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.