Article was pretty dumb but I think they were trying to get hyper selective and stir up controversy. Some of the comments on the removed bands were almost comical. "They were really popular in the '50s and '60s but basically all our critics weren't alive then so they don't count".
Personal favorite was how they said Cat Stevens doesn't have any iconic songs that are relevant today. They literally used "Father and Son" and "If you want to sing out, sing out!"in big buy commercials in recent years. "Peace Train" has been used by virtually every Peace oriented movement and the Nobel Prize Committee. "Wild World" has been remade over and over. "First Cut is the Deepest" was remade by Sheryl Crow for one of her biggest hits. Saying Cat Stevens didn't have staying power is just ludicrous. Disqualify him for a short career or you just don't like his mellow sound I guess but dude is one of the most talented singer/songwriters ever. They also bagged on James Taylor for the same thing which is another WTF?
Personally I think they need to go easy on the folks who were "influential" but are super obscure as well as the pop type bands that didn't really have a lot of artistic/critical claim. The latter made a ton of money and they are good musicians but just not really HoF. I'd put the most value on how much they have stood the test of time and to the very few that you listen to and think, "Yep, that would still be a great song if it was released today". Length of time they played is also overrated. Music by its nature produces folks that are ridiculous talents that flash for an album or two and then are never the same. I'd rather take someone that burned super bright, people still recognize them now, and then faded vs the pretty good band that put out pretty good albums for 15 years. I will give this list some credit for sifting out a lot of the latter.