Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in rock and roll

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 and I don't see any emerging either. A proposed merger or move should be discussed at WP:PM. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in rock and roll

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

There's several issues with this list, which violates WP:NOT#INFO. This list that has no defined criteria and extremely unmaintainable. Every rock and roll artist will die eventually. It has no age limit, artists that been dying of old age is listed. There's no exact criteria in which an artist qualifies as rock and roll here (I see quite a number of artists listed that their music isn't consider rock). Who can be defined as "iconic" for this list is original research and so fourth. An article of rock artists who died unexpectedly, and became iconic is fine, (don't we have an article on that already, I can't find it) as it's an extremely notable subject. But this list isn't the answer. Delete Secret ^account 02:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the above issues could be overcome, and there's no requirements for a WP list to be comprehensive or to have precise legalistic criteria. The cataloguing of Rock Deaths is a long-standing practice: see Greil Marcus's classic essay "Rock Death in the 1970s: A Sweepstake" and the Houston Press's regular coverage of the topic under the rubric of the Greil Marcus Rock Death Meter[1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. I've commented before on this question on the article talk page. As the proposer here suggests, the list is increasingly bloated by the inclusion of unexceptional age-related deaths of minor (and certainly not "iconic") figures, and clearer criteria need to be set for inclusion, based in my view primarily on age - deaths of rock (or rock-related) musicians aged under 50, for example. But, the list should be improved along those lines, rather than deleted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because any limits placed on it would be completely arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is highly notable; for example, here's an entire book dedicated to it. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of real-world coverage and notability. Criteria needs to be tightened and the list cleaned up, but that's a matter for the talkpage, not AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And tell me how any criteria would not be totally arbitrary and random. No matter what limit you set, it's totally arbitrary. Why 50 and not 40? Why 40 and not 30? Etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss that on the talkpage of the article. Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of unnatural deaths of rock and rollers and prune all run-of-the-mill medical causes. This would alleviate 10-pound (4.5 kg) Hammer's objection. Is Alan Freed's death due to uremia and liver cirrhosis all that notable? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't fix it. What constitutes unusual? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of these people, it appears to be: transportation accidents, drug overdose, suicide, murder and the odd freak electrocution. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename TenPoundHammer, Clarityfiend's suggestion says 'unnatural', not 'unusual'. 'Unnatural' is a non-subjective term, and fixes the problem quite nicely.143.92.1.33 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When scare tactics get old, they get boring. Perfectly normal editorial decisions are neither POV nor are they OR. Similarly, when lists, just as any other article, get too big, they get split. There are no answerable arguments to delete. Anarchangel (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2012 (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.