Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture

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. A Train ^{take the} 05:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosmith in popular culture[edit]

Delete - this is an indiscriminate list and directory filled with unsourced and trivial items seeking to gather together every appearance of the band, every use of one of its songs and every time something that resembles the band appears in any medium. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. Otto4711 02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Ckessler 03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I don't think this is original research (no "random event x in show y may be a ref to Aerosmith"), I don't see the need of a extensive list of Aerosmith appearances and references. If they're not in the main article, then they're clearly not important pieces of information. ' 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By original research I'm referring to items like A rock band of elves resembling Aerosmith is featured in the movie The Polar Express performing a song called "Rockin' on Top of the World." Steven Tyler sang the lyrics in the song, yet the rest of the band was either not featured in the song or not given credit, meaning it is likely one of Tyler's few solo works. I mean, it's not "theory of everything" style OR but still. Otto4711 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ah, I see that now. ' 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak keep to Aerosmith. I know this is probably where the article started, but I'm sure most of what's in the article is verifiable, even if not currently verified. I suggest merging non-trivial popular culture references to Aerosmith, tagging them with {{fact}} and deleting them if they remain unsourced for more than, say, 2 weeks. I think this could be a stand-alone article, but it would require adding a lot of context, performing a great deal of cleanup, and sourcing every claim made. Possible, but hard to do--that's why I write "weak" keep. -- Black Falcon 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Incredibly Weak mini-Merge, as per the precedent listed above. I would actually consider an article like this even less encyclopedic than a list of Rush references - Aerosmith is just too gigantic for something like this. It would be similar to the color blue in popular culture, List of country songs about loving someone, or List of UPC codes divisible by two. A few of the more defining uses (i.e., the earliest known use of an Aerosmith song in a mainstream movie, some factoid involving Revolution X, and the Head First (Aerosmith) download) could be placed in the main Aerosmith article. As a side note, the Revolution X trivia blurb is a prime example of how not to write trivia - the game came out for several consoles at once, and the "focus" of the blurb should probably be on the arcade game, which came first and was the most successful. Okay, taking my Nerd Rage and signing out -- --Action Jackson IV 06:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Action Jackson IV. I don't see how a subject like this could effectively be merged into the Aerosmith article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, just a collection of unencyclopedic random facts. Anyway, this article is pretty much nonsensical as Aerosmith are part of popular culture. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it looks like this, along with most articles in Category:Musicians in popular culture are being AfD'd. If that's the case, what about most of the articles in Category:Representations of people in popular culture and each category up the tree from there? Would it be allowed if referenced like AC/DC in popular culture or should that also be considered a useless list and get AfD'd? And since this is an internet discussion, I will bring up Hitler (and why not Stephen Hawking too). Does something make AC/DC more "worthy" than Aerosmith? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The simple response is that humans are not omnipresent. None of us have the ability to scour every article and nominate all offending ones for deletion. We are not debating those articles; we are debating Aerosmith. ' 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pointing to a single article or two here; there are entire category trees that start at the In Popular Culture as a root. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This changes my argument how? ' 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This does need to be sourced, but it appears to be factual information. Also needs to be edited alot more. ZimmerBarnes 14:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subtrivial fancruft in popular culture. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aerosmith has passed the test of time and culture into notability. It would be hard to deny that. Bbagot 19:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is denying that Aerosmith the band is highly notable. What is not notable or needed is a listing of every passing mention of the band wherever it may be found. Otto4711 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't just a listing, it was descriptive context, and appeared to be events that would be considered to be quite notable and verifiable. There was no indication it was an unabridged rendering. Bbagot 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's with the Aerosmith hate-fest lately?? I sense some extreme bias against this band on Wikipeida and it disgusts me. We can have an article for every song the Beatles wrote, an article chronicling Madonna saying the F-word on Letterman, an article about the Beatlemania, a list of Christina Aguilera's B-sides an unreleased material, and even AC/DC can have their article about pop culture, but God forbid Aerosmith (a band that's been around making music for nearly 40 years and sold more records than any other American rock band) has a few specialty articles. Considering many kids today only know of Aerosmith because of their soundtrack contributions, their being featured in a rollercoaster attraction, and their appearances on Saturday Night Live, I think it's important to have this section. Otherwise, the band's history section is going to become incredibly long as we incorporate (merge) many of these important items into the band's history section, making the Aerosmith article, which is already too long, even longer. But who am I to say anything. I simply want to expand knowledge on Wikipedia, the rest of you seem to want to hinder it. --Abog 04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am unaware of any "Aerosmith hate-fest" on Wikipedia. I am aware of two articles relating to Aerosmith being nominated for deletion recently, this one and one about outtakes. That does not amount to a "hate-fest" under any reasonable interpretation. Second, you are expected to assume good faith of your fellow Wikipedians and accusing them of orchestrating a campaign against your favorite band fails to do so. Finally, if you believe that articles on Madonna's swearing of Aguilara's b-sides or whatever else do not belong on Wikipedia, then put them up for deletion. The existence of one crap article does not justify the existence of another crap article, so arguing in favor of this one by pointing to other shitty articles is a poor argument. Otto4711 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say that I thought they were all shitty articles? No. Don't imply. I think they are all good articles and should stay, especially considering how prominent these musicians are in pop culture, and the fact that their main articles would be incredibly long if they weren't broken into these sub-sections. Aerosmith is no different, and it seemed as since their articles were all being gone after at the same time, like people were suddenly denying Aerosmith's importance or notability. And that's where I took issue. But now that I realize this is an artist-by-artist thing, I'll back off a little. Since many of these bulleted items already appear in the main Aerosmith article, I'm backing off a bit, and I think that we should just merge most of the rest, either into the Aerosmith article, or into the appropriate song articles. This isn't a matter of shitty articles, it's a matter of what appeared to me to be double standards. --Abog 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons I support the afd on Stephen Hawking in Popular Culture. I would make the argument that any article with "in Popular Culture" in the title should be deleted. Such articles are going to necessarily be original research and you have the added (and significant) problem of defining what, precisely, constitutes 'popular culture.' Essentially, "Aerosmith in Popular Culture" equals "Aerosmith in American Culture." This is unencyclopedic and US-centric (or at least Western-centric). If there is anything encyclopedic in the article then it should be merged into the Aerosmith article. --The Way 08:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've gone ahead and removed all the information from this article that I could find which already appeared in the main Aerosmith article. I'm sure there's stuff I've missed, but a lot of it is repeated. Ckessler 08:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, finally we can agree on something for once. I applaud you for your efforts. I had had this idea too, and knew that many of the factoids had been incorporated into the article already. Can we at least give this a couple days, so I can put in some of the more important things into the Aerosmith article or into the articles of the respective songs? Thanks. I think merging is a good compromise. --Abog 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivia section. Gazpacho 11:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate collection of trivia, similar to precedent offered in nom. GassyGuy 05:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 23:01, 20 February 2007 (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.