Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of glam metal bands and artists/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:23, 3 June 2010 [1].

List of glam metal bands and artists

Featured list candidates/List of glam metal bands and artists/archive1

Nominator(s): RG (talk), FateForger

I am nominating this for featured list because it gives readers a brief summary of hair metal and a pretty well sourced list of its groups. Me and User:FateForger were the main two contributers who worked on the article. Essentially this list is based on the list of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, a former Featured list. Also there have been almost no edit wars. Please feel free to comment on any problems the list has. RG (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm pretty sure that this list is missing a tons of bands, such as, you know, European, Asian or even African glam metal bands which are not that notable. --TIAYN (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We actually do have a lot of European acts on the list (Europe, Scorpions, Crashdïet, The Darkness, Krokus, Yngwie Malmsteen, etc.) and one Asian group (Loudness). I seriously doubt we could find notable groups from Africa and more importantly reliable sources citing them as hair metal bands. RG (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This list is a re-post of a list that was previously nominated for AfD and the result was delete. Wiki libs (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposer has openly admitted on the article's discussion page that factual accuracy was not a consideration when compiling the list. Criteria for inclusion seem to be arbitrary, i.e. any single semi-reliable source will do, regardless of how many other sources exist to the contrary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Articles can be recreated just so you know and the fact that the article was deleted is not relevant. Also might I add that the only reason the list was deleted in the first place was because of Libs and his sockpuppets, Fair Deal and Peter Fleet. And Breton you're personal beliefs are not to be used here on wikipedia. As I've stated before wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. This list covers all criteria for featured list status. RG (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal beliefs? Like what? Like my personal belief that you openly admitted on the article's talk page that you weren't worried about facts? Would you like me to supply that quote here? Here you go: [2]. WP:Truth doesn't say anything about providing a single source for a piece of information, and using it to try and deny a huge number of sources that say something else. That's what is being done on this list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said that because I myself disagree with some of the bands on the list, but the list is in fact 100% accurately sourced so my opinion and more importantly your opinion doesn't matter. Even the bands you have disagreed about have multiple sources categorizing them in this genre. Your oppose vote was based not on Featured List criteria. RG (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it more important that my opinion doesn't matter than yours? You might want to rephrase that. Are you a more important editor? You appear to be claiming that my vote doesn't count, and whether you like it or not, it counts. You are not addressing the fact that there are many more sources placing some of these bands in a different genre, making this list misleading and not suitable for Featured List status. Ghits suggest that Slade and T-Rex (as examples) are up to ten times more closely associated with glam rock than glam metal. The scope of the list is too broad in that it includes bands far more commonly associated with other genres, diluting the function of the list. It suggests that sources were selected specifically to verify one point of view, while a far more commonly-held point of view was ignored. My view is that the reason for this list would be far better served by a category. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, you've completely misunderstood my statement. You're the one making the decision on whether this is going to become a featured list (which it mostly likely won't seeing how this discussion has started off) or not. I know that my opinion won't influence you hence why it isn't as important. Only your thoughts and your beliefs influence the way you make decisions. Also, google hits are not relevant. A majority off the websites that you see are blogs, forums, fansites, etc and not reliable. And might I add that bands can play more than one style at a time. A band doesn't have to be just glam rock. And having more sources calling something something else also, again frankly isn't relevant. If the list of psychedelic rock bands was well sourced and put up for FLS would you complain about Cream being on the list even though you might find more sources calling them a blues-rock band (hypothetically speaking of course)? RG (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it was a poorly worded statement on your part, I think. I know that ghits aren't a toll of reliable sources. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between us regarding what is and isn't metal, but that is not why I oppose this list. More sources placing bands in a different genre is relevant; it makes the list misleading, and calls into question the whole function of the list. A particular point of fact is that each of these sources probably have different definitions of glam metal - they are not working to a single definition. What does this list tell people? The list implies that (e.g.) T. Rex were a glam metal band and shared something intrinsically in common with the likes of W.A.S.P. and Whitesnake. The genre most commonly associated with T. Rex is not glam metal but glam rock, and honestly, with the best will in the world, T. Rex and WASP had very little in common. Why is it so important that at least one reliable source calls T-Rex glam metal, when it is clear that many more sources call them something else? If bands can play more than one style at a time, and be several different genres at once, then discerning criteria for a list is far too vague for comfort. I think lists of bands based on genre are fundamentally flawed, subjective and better served by categories which can more comfortably overlap. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.