Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British pop musicians of the 1940s


 * 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 all. T. Canens (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

List of British pop musicians of the 1940s

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

wp:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC, WP:SALAT. Wikipedia isnt a repository of loosely associated topics nor a directory. Not a useful list, because inclusion criteria isn't mentioned, and isn't clear at all. All the terms in these lists' name are too vague, see wp:LISTNAME. Most of the entries are rock artists though, so lists should be at least renamed to List of British rock musicians. (Further, Pop music didn't exist until the 1950s). See also
 * -- Maashatra11 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Maashatra11 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Maashatra11 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Maashatra11 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Maashatra11 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Maashatra11 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Maashatra11 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Didn't you just withdraw a very similar nomination here? If so, why list it again?--Michig (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nominated them together with many bundled articles which I now feel weren't totally suited to the same deletion rationale. Now I split them into several AfDs. I hope this is fine now. An user suggested me to "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. " Maashatra11 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. Several editors have recently given an opinion on these in the aborted AFD Articles for deletion/List of British pop musicians of the 1930s.--Michig (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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) 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You still didn't address my concerns; you say "Perfectly fine inclusion criteria" but I can't see it. What qualifies as pop and what doesn't? Maashatra11 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably best you read the article pop music if you don't know the definitions.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As per previous AfD, there is nothing preventing inclusion criteria from being spelled out, pop music is not as oblique or vague as the nominator argues, and if an artist isn't a pop artist they can be removed. Kate (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, now I removed Jack Jackson (British radio) and Harry Roy from the list List of British pop musicians of the 1930s; they are not pop artists. Do you have any arguments why do we need this empty list? I also did the same with the 40s article; Only Vera Lynn could be a good candidate as a a pop artist, but this "denomination" was certainly given to her after the 40s (the term itself wasn't used until the 50s).Maashatra11 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is contemporaneous use of a term relevant? Issac Newton is described (rightfully) as a physicist, a term that wasn't in use until some 113 years after his death. Kate (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we need empty lists? Maashatra11 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You removed all entries in an article, during an active AFD. Both of those musicians had articles, and were popular musicians of their day.    D r e a m Focus  00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, didn't you just write that this is a list of "pop musicians" and not "popular musicians", and that the "popular" word is in itself a problem?! I'm quoting: "The media coverage is for "pop musicians", it the same as "pop" is in "pop culture". "Pop musician" is understand to be popular in the culture as a whole.  The word "popular" itself however has problems, since many things can be considered popular to a small group, and remain totally unknown to the masses.". I'm so puzzled. Maashatra11 (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete List of British pop musicians of the 1940s and List of British pop musicians of the 1930s. Clarify inclusion criterion for the rest and cleanup per various editing guidelines.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment can someone tell me how Articles for deletion/List of Israeli rock artists is different from this one ? Maashatra11 (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Maashatra11 (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only two people commented on that, and one obviously has no clue to the guidelines for WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all The idea that there was no popular music in Britain before 1950 is ludicrous. See Popular music in England, 1840-1914, for example.  By coincidence, I just created an article about a singer who was popular in the fifties &mdash; the 1850s that is.  The idea that we can't or shouldn't have a list of such articles is nonsensical recentism. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the titles? There never was any mention of "popular music", but of "pop music". So according to you, maybe it's a good idea to move all these titles to "List of British popular musicians" instead of "pop"? I saw many artists of the rock genre on this lists, which is definitely not "pop" but certainly "popular music". The question here is precisely what is the definition of pop. The criteria for inclusion should be clearer. I now moved them to "popular" so the rock bands are more clearly suited to the title. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pop is just a contraction of popular and means exactly the same thing. Your proposition is like claiming that rock is not the same thing as rock and roll or that a bus is not the same thing as an omnibus. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pop IS NOT popular music. From popular music article: "Although popular music sometimes is known as "pop music", the two terms are not interchangeable. Popular music is a generic term for music of all ages that appeals to popular tastes";[5] on the other hand, pop music usually refers to a specific musical genre." And this is not a bus. So saying omnibus = bus is also wrong. Buses are a distinct modern "species" of transport, whereas "omnibus", from which "bus" derived, is an obsolete term used to describe any means of transport set up to carry many people usually horse carriages etc., but today this function is accomplished by modern buses. Maashatra11 (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see popular music and pop music for a better understanding of the terms. Rock is popular music, rock is not pop music, i.e. pop and popular are separate terms. The same is true for Rock'n'roll and Rock, which are distinct terms. Coldplay are generally said to be a rock band, but not a rock'n'roll band. Rock'n'roll is at the origin of the rock genre but is not so popular anymore. Please take a look at the articles for more thorough information on the subject. And, you see, I don't mean to cause chaos, Colonel. I'm just willing to make the pedia as accurate and encyclopaedic as possible. I think the resolution I found now, changing to "popular" instead of "pop", is not controversial, because as you say, the 2 terms are used (erroneously) sometimes interchangeably, though they are distinct terms. At least popular music is such a broad term that it may cover pretty much any of the artists that will be added there eventually. The only thing I was worried about is the term "pop". "Pop", quite like "rock" is one of the few terms whose exact definition was't, and will never be unanimously agreed upon. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire pop music article says its an abbreviation for popular music, and always has been. The only place in it that says differently is just one sentence, which I have tagged with a citation needed, since it seems totally out of place, someone's original research. "Pop music has absorbed influences from most other forms of popular music, but as a genre is particularly associated with the rock and roll and later rock style."   D r e a m Focus  23:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, the article doesn't say that pop music is an abbreviation for popular music. It only says that "pop" is an abbreviation of "popular". Do you understand this? And you didn't seem to have read what I wrote above about the vast differences between the pop subgenre and the generic term of "popular music". Maashatra11 (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Warning Please note that the nominator is making bold edits and moves of the articles under consideration without consensus. This moving of the goal posts during the discussion seems likely to cause chaos and so I suggest that this discussion be speedily closed and the nominator warned not to start any more deletion discussions until he has a better grasp of our usual practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   yak 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I remember just a few weeks ago you were making bold edits and moves of articles under consideration without consensus, Warden. Specifically, with Articles for deletion/List of renamed Indian public places.  Requesting a speedy close at this point in the process is ludicrous, and I suggest you refrain from making such requests until you have a better grasp of our usual practices.  And tagging the article for rescue (without notification or explanation) because someone is making bold edits doesn't seem like an appropriate use of the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   yak 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent the facts. You were the one disrupting the AFD by moving the article during the discussion and attempting to create a fait accompli.  My action was intended to revert your disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO Renaming/Moving pages shouldn't be considered "disruptive" if there is agreement that the renamed title/move is uncontroversial. I don't know yet regarding the pop articles, but it seems to me that SnottyWong's renaming wasn't controversial because his move wasn't reverted since your revert. And, as a matter of fact, I see that it's actually your move that was deemed controversial and was deleted, with a comment saying "Move made by Col Warden was against consensus formed at the AfD for this article" . Maashatra11 (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that this discussion is particularly relevant here, but it is clearly you who are misrepresenting the facts, which are clearly laid out in the AfD and edit histories. The move I made had consensus, as can be seen clearly in the AfD.  The moves you made were disruptive, had to be undone by an admin, and the page had to be move-protected to prevent you from moving it again.    Snotty Wong   communicate 21:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There are sources in the media that call them pop musicians. This a perfectly valid list article.   D r e a m Focus  23:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing the names of all of the articles from "pop musicians" to "popular musicians", as the nominator has done during this AFD, is absurd! The media coverage is for "pop musicians", it the same as "pop" is in "pop culture".  "Pop musician" is understand to be popular in the culture as a whole.  The word "popular" itself however has problems, since many things can be considered popular to a small group, and remain totally unknown to the masses.  I suggest changing it back.   D r e a m Focus  00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Popular music means generally music that is not classical. I didn't find a better word to put because most of the entries don't belong to the pop genre but rather to rock, so popular would fit in them both best. If the inclusion criteria is so clear for you, please add it to the articles because they lack any description of criteria, and remove all the entries who don't meet this criteria. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my above discussion about your misinterpretation of what pop musician means.  D r e a m Focus  00:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry for making that controversial move. But if we're already at it, I have another suggestion that I feel will be maybe less controversial; rename all the entries to List of British pop and rock musicians. I feel that labeling so many rock bands as "pop music" is not a good idea. Thoughts ? Maashatra11 (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to comment. As there is no option to revert my move, and the word "popular" is, as DreamFocus points out, not very useful, I'm performing the move I described above. Maashatra11 (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * delete or merge sourced content (same result) with no sourced content in any of the articles, deletion will result in zero harm to the encyclopedic content. The grouping of these entertainers by decade is in itself arbitrary. As popular (or pop) music changes over time, there is nothing that defines or connects an artist from 1961 to an artist from 1969, and artists perform over periods that span these arbitrary breaking dates. Active Banana (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Active Banana. Grouping artists by arbitrary 10 year periods goes against WP:NOTDIR.    Snotty Wong   express 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A comment re organizing by decades: Its common human practice to organize things by decades, (E.g., "Best Albums of the 80s" even if, say, Argybargy is completely different than Doolittle), or centuries, or millenia (Category:Populated places established in the 8th millennium BC), even if those divisions are somewhat arbitrary. That's just a matter of organization of data more than whether its worthwhile to have these articles.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is still the issue of clarity here. A band formed late in one decade might not be known until the next (and thus be associated with the latter rather than the former). Some bands actually lasted through more than one decade. Where do we put the bands? It's not hard to make it objective, but it has to be stated clearly, just like what constitutes "pop". Pink Floyd is listed both in the 1960s article and the 1970s one, though it has produced albums up to the 1990s.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The examples you give work just fine though. When an album is released, it is released on a specific date.  When a city is established, it is established on a particular date.  However, the existence of a band is not a singular event that you can easily group by decade.    Snotty Wong   confabulate 13:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per ActiveBanana and Snotty. WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. It's also anachronistic as there was no "pop music" on 1940, and the decade grouping is arbitrary and useless. Verbal chat  19:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Maashatra11 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, arbitrary lists, questionable inclusion criteria, and better dealt with by categories. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This can be handled by categories. Lists are useful if they have the potential to be enlarged to contain info not available in a category. However, no argument has been made that this is likely. We are talking here about bluelinked persons, so any relevant info will be in their articles. Herostratus (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, arbitrary lists and good arguments as per Stifle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.194.87.125 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that 192.194.87.125 has made three edits ever, all of which were in AFDs.  D r e a m Focus  20:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all Arbitrary standards, full of unsourced content, and useless compared to the categories. Courcelles (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete It's not really a list if there is only one person now is it?-- LAA Fan '' 05:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.