Talk:List of deaths in rock and roll

Untitled

I decided to create this page today when trying to remember if an artist had died or whether I as confusing them with someone else. I couldn't find any good reference lists of deaths in rock. So I decided to create this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argeiphontes (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 August 2006

Style Content

To make the content easier to read how about either alphabetizing each name in the proper decade list or at least put the list together in date of death order?

Split proposal

I'd like to propose that this huge list be split into separate lists by decade, for example: List of deaths in rock and roll, 1950s to List of deaths in rock and roll, 2010s. Per WP:SIZESPLIT, an article of this size (over 500 kB) should certainly be split, and splitting by decade seems optimal given the current structure of the list. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is ridiculously long, but I'm not in favour of splitting it in the way suggested. My alternative proposal - suggested previously - would be to agree some criteria for inclusion. Many of those listed here are either (at best) peripheral to rock and roll, or there is nothing unusual about their deaths that needs to be noted in a list such as this. And of course most of the entries are unsourced. But, there has so far been no consensus to set criteria for inclusion, and certainly no consensus on what the criteria should be. Personally, I've long abandoned this article to the IPs who try to keep it up-to-date. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: I just noticed (!) that the article is currently protected from IP edits (and has been for four weeks). So, while that is the case, it is an opportunity to review whether it should be pruned to a more manageable size. What do other editors (if any) think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The protection expires on 24 November, so there is not much time left. I'd suggest removing all those who are non-notable (ie. without any current Wikipedia article). I might also cheekily suggest getting rid of all those without a cited source, in which case the need to split would largely be negated ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I've removed a few entries where there wasn't a source or a Wikipedia page to prove that person's existence. Honestly, it's hard to detect redirects. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

As for the protection, since it was for sockpuppetry, we just have to prepare for similar edits by socks and request protection once the edits pick back up again. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these edits. Claims of "sockpuppetry", in this case, have really been just an excuse to exclude IPs from the editing process. By and large, the IPs editing this article in recent months have contributed constructively in that they have added accurate information, albeit unsourced (as have been almost all other editors' edits) and sometimes of doubtful relevance to the subject. I wouldn't support a return to protection simply based on whether or not IPs edit it - protection would only be justified if there was going to be a concerted effort by registered editors to make major improvements to the article, based on established criteria and good referencing. That would be a big job, and I don't see much sign of it happening. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"That would be a big job, and I don't see much sign of it happening". Me neither, although I have tried to do my bit over the past couple of years. Ghmyrtle has banged on for some time about trying to get consensus over who should be listed in this article, without any tangible movement. As I say some of us are trying hard, really hard, but it needs much more concerted effort from other editors, if we are ever going to move this article towards respectability. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought... If we can share out responsibility for years between two or three of us, simply to incorporate suitable references (for date of death, cause, etc.) while maintaining the existing list as it stands for the time being, those of us involved might then be able to agree some sort of criteria for weeding out those whose lives and deaths are insufficiently notable or insufficiently "rock and roll". Just a thought.... ("Banging on..."...??) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

In the true spirit of Wiki collaboration, I would be happy to take a decade and supply refs, if other editors wanted to do others???? Just something from the last century please before all this hippotty-hoppotty and rap nonsense polluted my ears!!!--Egghead06 (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

In the even truer spirit of, my godfathers I've been here ten times before, I have added a slew of references working back from the most recent deaths. To be fair, I've missed out those without individual articles or, as far as I can easily vouch, redirects. To be honest, it is akin to walking through treacle. I may have come across the hippotty-hoppotty hat brigade too. I will leave the year dot, to the 1990s inclusive, well alone for now. I am wary of supplying too much of my time and energy, to those whose listing here may disappear sometime in the future. Still banging away as best I can, although at my age I might well be "insufficiently "rock and roll"". Could well be even more of the same to come.... if I live long enough. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm conscious that I'm dipping in and out of WP involvement pretty much on a whim at the moment. If anyone wants me to stop adding random references as I wish, please feel free to tell me to get a grip and organise my life better.... I will try to comply. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I would rather you did more, not less ! But, of course, it is your call. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Am now finding it almost impossible to edit this article due to loading issues. Sorry if my puny laptop is to blame, but for many other editors, especially smart-phone users, I suspect it is a nightmare. Separate articles for each decade might be a start? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, even Wikipedia itself now can not cope withe article's size, and is unable to list the references section. HOWEVER, more than one editor here has vigorously resisted a split, until the issues of notability, referencing and criteria can be agreed upon. I am much in favour of getting rid of all those without their own article (ie. almost certainly not notable). As far as references is concerned, I alone have added about 1,000 of them in the past year or two, but there is still some work to do. The criteria issue is the biggest problem, since there has not been much movement towards an agreement, despite many contributing on this talk page. We need some sort of answer/agreement/concensus before this article explodes !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Split soonest please. My iPad will no longer cope with this article and just keeps reloading it.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that there may be lot of "ballast" in here that should be trimmed and that (to that end) agreeing suitable criteria for inclusion is the most important task. However, as long as the article stays this big, I for one will not be able to help to reduce it. And suspect fewer and were editors will also be able to help. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC) .... not that I've actually offered to do anything to help anyway, lol

Personally I still think that a more constructive approach would be to try and establish some criteria for inclusion, rather than simply splitting the current list by (essentially arbitrary) decades. Though I suspect I'm in a minority of one (or two). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, I just know this is not going to turn out well. *sob* Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Then, shall I have a go and take out those without their own articles, and those without references, which I have already checked for same - ie. those who are seemingly not notable ?? Or shall we all prevaricate forever - 'cos I'm good at that too ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So can we agree a list of definite exclusions? Musicians without their own articles? or musicians in bands that have no articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely exclude musicians in bands that have no articles (unless, of course, they are notable for their work outside those bands). But, in relation to musicians without their own articles, I refer you, m'lud, to my comment of 7 June 2014: "I can think of deaths of individuals lacking articles that I would be reluctant to exclude (Mary Ann Ganser of the Shangri-Las, Arlester Christian of Dyke & The Blazers, Malcolm Owen of The Ruts, etc.)."... and add Robert Fisher of Willard Grant Conspiracy. Some of those may have redirects, and it would be a simple matter to add those that don't. Perhaps a way forward would be to list on this talk page those who would be excluded as a result of any criteria-based cull, and then discuss those individuals on a case-by-case basis. For example, Fisher's death was widely reported - the only reason he does not have his own article is that he was not sufficiently notable for anything he did outside the context of his band - but he was still notable, as the leader of a notable band. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Will take longer that a single day, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of removing those with no articles, there are still to be added others who have been involved in the been involved in the music business!--Egghead06 (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That raises the whole other question of whether the list should only include musicians, or also include producers, songwriters, managers, promoters, DJs, critics, roadies..... etc. etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What I would like to see first

is for the concerns pointed up in my drive-by tagging to be addressed.

If the information within is simply a rehash of The Dead Rock Stars Club or The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars or similar, this presents two major problems, namely

• clearly it is either outright theft of intellectual property or Original Research, and thereby ought to be immediately deleted
• it is not WP's place to defer to the whims of a handful of self-styled authorities, and any example of such deference ought to be immediately deleted

When a WP entry becomes even a fraction this gargantuan, the slate of supporting authoritative sources for its simple existence MUST expand as well, and I would argue exponentially. Three or four sources might cut it for a hundred-entry list, but not here. If that bare handful is both sufficient for the topic AND accessible by anyone who can read WP, then the list is redundant and should be immediately deleted, as it adds nothing to knowledge, with no good reason for other WP articles to refer to it directly, making it a rather ironic dead end. A quick estimate says there are more than 3,400 entries at the moment, so it would not be unreasonable to expect at least a dozen credible sources, minimally being well-established and widely respected credible (paid) critics who presently support the thoroughness of sources such as TDRSC etc. Anything less, to any degree, speaks to the necessity to delete this list.

The title itself is a shuck, a multiple bait-and-switch. There's a clear difference between "people who have died IN rock and roll" and "people in rock and roll who have died." As well, for the latter, "people IN rock and roll" is nothing at all like "people in some way associated with rock and roll, maybe for a few seconds and many years ago." Someone who retired altogether from music, lived a long happy life, and died a peaceful death surrounded by family certainly did not "die in rock and roll." (Probably-living example: Paul Arnold, founding bassist of The Zombies.) To claim "well, they influenced someone!!" is disingenuous at best; as other have pointed out, influence is insufficient, set aside J.S. Bach: Joe Walsh referenced both "Bolero" and "Cast Your Fate to the Wind" in "The Bomber"; that in no way turns either Maurice Ravel nor Vince Guaraldi into "rock and roll."

My thanks to those masochists who have labored long to add refrences to each article. However, simply putting an endnote number under Cause of death rather starkly points up the ultimate uselessness of this list: why not simply have the name followed by a link to an outside publication?

In brief,

1. justify the mere existence of this list, citing multiple credible sources
2. explicitly state the criteria applied for exclusion AND inclusion of specific instances
3. point up in the intro section that this is NOT a list of persons, but a list of Wikipedia articles about individuals who someone believed (perhaps ephemerally) fit the list's criteria, and that there are many more individuals who would qualify except for not having enough of a fanboy following to rate even a ten-word Stub

…for starters.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see:-

1. The whole thing spilt into decades.
2. An accurate name for the article. It's stretching definitions way too far to describe many on this list as being anything to do with rock and roll. What's wrong with List of deaths in music 2010s etc?
3. For a consensus to be reached as to the role of those listed - musicians, DJs?, managers? impresarios?, song writers?
4. For every entry to be referenced. Describing those who add these as masochists is not helpful. They the basis of any good wiki article. We have enough hypothesisers, we need contributors.
5. For non notable (in the understood wiki sense) entries to be deleted.

--Egghead06 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Weeb Dingle's comments:

1. The article is well-read (over 1100 views/day recently), and so presumably found useful by casual readers. Whether or not it meets - or would ever meet, even if improved - WP:GA or similar criteria is irrelevant in my view. If the view is that the article should not exist, feel free to nominate it at WP:AFD for further discussion, including contributions from non-involved editors.
2. Agree. See my multiple posts suggesting just that. All we have to do is agree the criteria.....
3. It is a WP:STAND, like (say) Deaths in 2017. Nothing wrong with that.

Regarding Egghead06's comments:

1. If absolutely necessary... but focus on criteria first, and see if that reduces the list significantly.
2. Fine.. but a fairly trivial point. Many "deaths in music" would never be considered for inclusion on this list, and are not included.
3. Agree.
4. Agree.
5. Agree.

--Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing the point(s), clearly.

• "Describing those who add these as masochists is not helpful." Meant affectionately; I'm high-functioning OCD, and I find that display of effort no less than awesome.
• Check Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed. As (for example) Barack Obama had 2.3 million hits 05 Nov 2008, "over 1100 views/day recently" (daily average 1,118) is lower by more than three orders of magnitude, making this list less "well-read" than "not completely irrelevant" considering its sheer bulk.
• The comparison to Deaths in 2017 is a failed analogy, as it is chockful of red links throughout, therefore clearly NOT requiring a Wikipedia article for every entry, thus not the same notability as any other list. To be a Wikipedia List page, each entry must have an article. If an article is required, then this is a list of articles, not of deceased individuals, and this ought to be made clear wherever the policy holds (a further downside of the policy being to encourage proliferation of otherwise useless Stubs merely so that fans can get their faves onto said list). I do see this as an unaddressed problem, and I am addressing it.

(A saving grace of Deaths in 2017 and similar is that they at least will reach something like closure, whereas List of deaths in rock and roll will only continue to bloat, becoming ever more useless except as a trivia graveyard.)

• My (perhaps faulty) understanding is that, to appear on a list such as this, an entry MUST be "established by reliable sources" as belonging here; that would likely be the "in rock and roll" part. Each name must therefore have an outside "champion" standing clearly for its inclusion.
• Those entries that lack both an article and a "champion" should be removed, by anyone willing, ASAP. Those with one or the other should be considered as probationary.
• Am I doing something incorrect? Right this second there's 1,478 references in the list, yet the final References section only contains the note Template:Reflist. If this is what everyone is seeing, that makes EVERY reference on the list invalid.

Weeb Dingle (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Re the last comment. You are seeing the Reflist note as the article is just too cotton picking big to show the expanded version of all the references. Unless a consensus is reached on splitting, this won't go away.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A few points. Firstly, the current article says at the top: "In determining criteria for inclusion, this list uses as its basis reliable sources listing "rock deaths" or "deaths in rock and roll", as well as such sources as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame." That format was agreed through discussion on this page a few years ago, and it seems to me could continue, as setting out broadly workable criteria. I agree that we should include references to support individuals' inclusion in this list (such as inclusion in other "rock" lists, or in the Hall of Fame), as well as for the details of their death. Secondly, although I can see some point in trying to only include people with their own articles, there are cases where notable musicians do not have their own articles (for example, as leaders of notable bands), and in any case it would be a trivial matter to convert any redlinks to redirects. Incidentally, the Deaths in 2017 list does only contain people with articles, except for those who have died within the last month where it is reasonable to assume that articles will be created - where articles are not created, those names are removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

2nd Split proposal

This article is well over 800,000 bytes, that's almost twice as big as the next longest article. It desperately needs a split as the article is actually having problems loading. I propose a split based on decade like the first proposal, then we can decide on the inclusion criteria after the split, it would be far easier to edit the split articles than try to edit this monster. If nobody objects after a couple hours, I will begin the split. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 06:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The current size of the article is absurd and unhelpful to readers (or editors). Can I suggest that for the time being we need an article for each decade, rather than simply splitting off the 2010s. As I've said in previous discussion, I'm all in favour of setting criteria for inclusion here, but they would not be easy to agree, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with above. Its current size makes it almost unworkable. Split by decade.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Very well, consensus. Starting the split. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 11:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little late on this proposal, but I fully agree, just to add to the above consensus. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done split completed, article split into "List of deaths in rock and roll (decade)". Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 12:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't have let the disruptive edits of a drive-by IP editor control the direction of this article. Always review the article history before making significant changes like this, which would have avoided creating a WP:Content fork at List of deaths in rock and roll (2010s). And Rob3512, what's up with waiting just six hours to determine that there was a consensus? wbm1058 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)