Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of baroque pop 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 no consensus. While !votes for merge, keep, and delete have strong, valid points on all sides, and the nomination has been relisted twice. Because of those reasons there is no clear consensus and thus defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

List of baroque pop artists
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * 1) (Almost?) every source fails verification (many rely on the "styles" section of an artist's AllMusic bio, which is not an acceptable source).
 * 2) Even if they didn't fail, not enough baroque pop artists exist to merit a page split from Baroque pop. Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What are the grounds for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON? The reasons stated do not seem to fit those criteria.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 18:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I meant to merge rather than delete. But there's so few artists and verified/reliable sources that it's not even worth keeping them (So reasons 6 and 7).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as this seems enough for its own article given the subject thus a list is acceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  04:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Baroque pop is a very niche style, not unlike Sunshine pop. The list is never going to expand. I've cleaned out almost every artist in that list who failed verification, and very little remains.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The term isn't used consistently and it doesn't really exist as a coherent genre, and all we're going to get is a list of artists where one source has used the term in one article, or worse a list of bands that genre warriors believe are 'baroque pop'. --Michig (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge to Baroque pop (1st choice) or Weak Keep (2nd choice) - Weak Keep (updated in light of recent revisions/sources) . It's true that the sourcing for the list looks to have been based primarily on Allmusic genre listings (unreliable per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES). I don't think we need to get into the popularity/nichey nature of the genre to evaluate the list and the genre's article. The genre's article is also poorly sourced and not very long. It can sustain -- and indeed would benefit from -- an embedded list. Think of it this way: If the current list of baroque pop artists were part of baroque pop, would it make sense to spin it out to a separate article? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will add, by the way, that this probably should've been a proposed merge than AfD. As long as the genre article exists it makes sense to at least include there (and that page hasn't been nominated). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It is still long enough to clog up the main article, better to keep it here.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 22:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clog the article with 7 artists? And all of them highly questionable?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it won't stay at 7.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 14:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a rationale that would spin off nearly all embedded lists because they could grow. Why not include an impoverished list in the lackluster article until which time as it becomes prudent to spin it off? This AfD certainly doesn't prevent that. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Critical shorthand labels an ungodly amount of arty, indie pop and/or Top 40 artists as "baroque pop", along with the usual "avant-pop" or "experimental art pop", just because they use cellos and audio samplers. It's almost always self-described, probably originating from self-published website bios and press kits. The list can expand, sure, but not into anything anyone wants to see, which is 5,000 insignificant alt rock bands who happened to tell a newspaper that they play the same genre that the Left Banke did 50 years ago.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion was closed on 12 April and rescinded the next day, but the log page transclusion was never transferred from the 2 April log. Relisting now on the current day.
 * Keep A notable list with notable examples listed. Note that the article had 60+ sources before the AfD nom was made. Then Ilovetopaint went through and "purged" the list to help his Afd nomination. They cite that "AllMusic bio, which is not an acceptable source", which, of course, is bollocks. Per Notability_(music) and WikiProject_Albums/Sources. A very bad faith nomination from the evidence here.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was suspect, too, so I went in an checked some of them. All of those that I checked only mentioned the term in the genre list on the sidebar, which that page you linked to explicitly says not to use. The removals -- at least all of those I saw -- are correct. It may "help this AfD", but it may also be that he/she went in to try to improve the list by removing unreliable sources and only then realized it should be deleted. Not saying I know that's the case, but it's an easy AGF. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly right. To add, a lot of the sources simply stated that one artist's album had "baroque" elements. Where is the line drawn? If the Beatles' "When I'm Sixty-Four" is a music hall song, do they get added to a "list of music hall artists"? Absurd. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to parent topic. Merge arguments above are the strongest. Term used inconsistently, no rationale for having a separate list of handful of artists. Not concerned about this list getting long as long as new additions use actual reliable sources. czar  07:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Finngall  talk  14:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The Left Banke, the Beach Boys, Phil Spector and more artists may be added to the list. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That page lists artists tagged with a particular genre in the allmusic sidebar, which is explicitly not a reliable source per WikiProject_Albums/Sources. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the "highlights", I'm talking about the description ("Baroque Pop emerged during the mid-'60s, a time when artists including the Left Banke, the Beach Boys, producer Phil Spector, and composer/arranger Burt Bacharach began infusing rock & roll with elements of classical music, achieving a majestic orchestral sound far removed from rock's wild, primitive origins.") Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha. Fair enough. It still strikes me as an awfully small list to need to be spun off from the main article, but that's more subjective, I suppose. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Spector and Bacharach never made baroque pop. I removed that AllMusic source because it doesn't really call them baroque pop either. Also, there really needs to be some discretion here. Are those obscure indie bands really comparable to Colin Blunstone's One Year and Van Dyke Parks' Song Cycle, or are they just singer-songwriter alt-rock with a French horn? If this list is going to be bloated with a confusing selection of artists who sound nothing like each other, what is the point in keeping it around? Talk:Baroque pop shows that this has been an enduring issue since the article was created. It's not a "list of baroque pop artists" anymore, it's a "list of artists that some fluff journalist has arbitrarily deemed baroque pop".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ilovetopaint, maybe should you learn what WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:CONTEXT mean ? All the references I used to expand the list explicitly associate these artists with the genre (and all of them are reliable). Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Where in the AllMusic source does it state that the Left Banke, Spector, Bacharach, and Beach Boys are baroque pop artists? I quote: "Baroque Pop emerged during the mid-'60s, a time when..." The proceeding artists are thus associated to "a time when", in other words, a certain era that coincided with baroque pop. Besides that, nobody can explain how on earth a record like "Be My Baby" recalls Bach or Handel. (Yes, I'm aware that there are sources for the Left Banke.)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * AllMusic makes it clear that baroque pop emerged in the mid-'60s thanks to the work of the Left Banke, the Beach Boys, Phil Spector and Burt Bacharach. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words, it doesn't. There are countless texts which state that progressive rock emerged thanks to the work of the Beach Boys and the Beatles. But that doesn't mean they're prog rock themselves.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No matter if it supports the genre or not, I added enough new entries in the list to prevent its deletion. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Michig.  Caden  cool  01:05, 8 May 2016 (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.