Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano rock


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Piano rock

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A large piece of original research that has lingered around Wikipedia a bit too long at this point. "Rock music that utilizes pianos" is not a basis for a genre, and the article itself is just a list of rock musicians who have piano in their songs. Given this page originally started as a means for someone to go on about Ben Folds Five, I'm amazed it hasn't been deleted sooner. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a paragraph from a book to consider:
 * "Since this book revolves around the piano, you will also lean about pop pianists/songwriters such as Elton John, Billy Joel, Randy Newman, and to a lesser extend newer faces like Tori Amos, Ben Folds, Rufus Wainwright, and others. Grouped together you could call this "piano rock" or "piano pop". Differentiating between those terms is something to explore as well and distinctions will be made about the sometimes hazy discrepancy betweeen pop and rock in chapter 12."


 * Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This can easily be added to the article about rock or pop music. There are far too many article on Wikipedia regarding spin-off genres that don't need a page on it's own. It's the same with articles about "genres" like "pop rap", "synth pop", "electro rock" and the like. Away with them all!! Oran e   (talk)  19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the fact that it's not the whole of the book quoted there. You're also not considering how well documented such genres may be.  synth pop, for example, is documented on pages 212–213 of that same book.  (This subject is documented on pages 213–215.)  We're not in the business of getting rid of knowledge because an editor thinks that there are "too many" articles on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not paper. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, but that's not even half of it. My main concern was that these pages are not properly sourced and contain but a few paragraphs. A topic should be devoted an entire article only if there is sufficient independent sources covering it. That two or three pages of your book are devoted to the topic of synth pop or piano rock is ok. But that is simply one source. We cannot lift the text verbatim into Wikipedia.
 * "Synth pop is pop music with emphasis on synthesizers" &mdash; that is all one gets from that article. Most of it is padded with repetition, original research, and useless list of artists that have had one or more songs qualify. That's unacceptable. The topic can be given a section in the mother article (i.e, synth pop can be covered under the article for pop music. It is, after all, just an extension of it).
 * To add to that, the proliferation of such articles have led to the huge problems people are currently having regarding genres in infoboxes. A song like Pink's "So What" would &mdash; if we're being professional&mdash; be classed as pop/rock. However, because there exists many unnecessary articles like synth rock, synth pop, electro rock, electro pop, this, that, etc, etc editors are seemingly compelled to list almost all of these so-called genres in the genre field. We need to get rid of them. Oran e   (talk)  03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The quote doesn't really support the existence of "piano rock" as an official genre, it just says "you could call this 'piano rock'" as if it were some nickname for the supposed genre. There don't seem to be any reliable third party sources that support the name of the genre. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The name is just a problem for the title. The book's author isn't uncertain that the grouping exists.  Indeed, as noted (and as the quoted paragraph said), there's additional documentation of the genre in the rest of the book.  Do you really think that there are no other sources?  The paragraph was meant to be a clue that this is in fact a recognized genre that is documented in books, and that all of these artists really are recognized as belonging to that particular genre in sources, contrary to the nominator's assertion that this is original research constructed by Wikipedia editors from whole cloth. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A large amount of very odd genres that do not sustain notability, per WP:NOTE, have been popping up all over Wikipedia; this being one of them. NSR 77  T 17:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thanks for nominating this one. We need to weed out a lot of these articles. Nothing but original research and misinformed opinions. Oran e   (talk)  19:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have seen "piano rock" used a genre occasionally, such as for Elton John and Bruce Hornsby, but as is evident from these two very dissimilar artists, the term doesn't mean much beyond "the artist plays piano". Out.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What the term means isn't a deletion criterion in Deletion policy. Neither is Wasted Time R's personal opinion of whether two artists are similar.  Nor is the state of earlier versions of the article.  And this is not original research, as has been claimed. What is a deletion criterion is that a subject is not documented, in depth, in multiple independent sources.  This subject is documented. In addition to the book by Starr (which, as mentioned &mdash; but which has seemingly been missed by everyone here, who perhaps didn't realize that page nine of the book was perhaps its introductory chapter, not the entirety of what the book had to say on the subject &mdash;, documents this genre in chapter 12) this genre is documented on pages 23–26 of ISBN 9780715320648, which traces the history of this genre from its inception in 1968 (which it calls "The Year Of Piano Pop"), through the explosion of piano pop/rock in the 1970s, to some of the artists in the genre that have arrived since the 1980s. The sources exist.  The subject is documented in depth by multiple published works that are independent of the subject.  The Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied, and it is possible to write and maintain an article.  All that is required to write and to maintain it is for editors to accept that when there's a conflict between the personal ideas and tastes of editors and what sources actually say, by policy sources must win.  Sometimes, what one thinks one knows is contradicted by what one actually discovers by reading sources.  Keep. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are books that trace the trends of the use of piano in popular music over time, just as they do the guitar, drums, saxophone, etc. That doesn't mean that "drums rock" is a legitimate genre.  For a genre to have any real meaning as such, it has to be recognized by many or most of the people in a field, not just a couple.  For example, if some edition of The Rolling Stone History of Rock 'n' Roll had a chapter called "Piano Rock", that would change my position.  It would also help if the article in question had a single cite.  Instead, it tries to draw connections between Jerry Lee Lewis, Freddie Mercury, and Vanessa Carlton that aren't there.  And while the "frantic performance styles" of the early pioneers was indeed influential, it was influential on all rockers – singers, guitarists, drummers, etc. – not just piano players.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not in the business of taking Wikipedia editors' words over what sources say. Your assertion that Jerry Lee Lewis is not part of the history of piano rock is simply the statement of someone with a pseudonym on a WWW site.  Readers don't trust you.  Whereas readers do trust sources which say (as Starr says on page 183) "To understand rock piano you have to go back to its blues roots.  Five pianists stand out in rock-n-roll's early history: [&hellip;] Jerry Lee Lewis [&hellip;]." and that list (as Starr says on page 213) "newer artists Tori Amos, Sarah McGlaughlin, Rufus Wainwright, Vanessa Carlton, and Ben Folds" as artists in this genre. You still aren't getting the idea that your personal view of who was influential and who belongs to a genre is irrelevant.  In a conflict between your personal views and sources, sources win.  And the sources are cited here, in this very discussion.  This does not make it impossible for you to know what they are and address them.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you can find a book or two that talk about "piano rock". That doesn't mean it's a recognized genre in the field at the same level as "girl groups", "British invasion", "country rock", "bubblegum", "heavy metal", "punk rock", etc. I've read through the Jerry Lee Lewis and Elton John entries in my 1980 edition of the RS History of RnR and I see a lot of mentions of piano, no mentions of "piano rock". And note that Starr's use of "rock piano" above is completely different than "piano rock". "Rock piano", meaning the use of piano as an element in rock music, is a very valid and important subject (as it would be for drums, sax, etc). If this article were titled and themed Use of piano in rock music rather than piano rock I'd be all for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We need more than an instructional book on how to play rock songs on piano to establish notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's an OR essay. Shot info (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The term appears to be a neologism that was thought up by somebody to describe a type of music.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Um, we would have seen your comment without the image distorting the page lol... Oran e  (talk)  01:46, 4 January 2009 (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.