Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Who 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. I felt the "delete" arguments here were stronger than the "keeps". Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Who 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 even a poster of one or another of the band members appears in any medium. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. Otto4711 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak keep to The Who. 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 The Who, 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 or merge. -- Black Falcon 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The Who is a rock band. It is part of popular culture. So the title makes no sense. But besides that, it is not clear what the point of this article, and those like it, is. The only justifiable purpose is to show that the band has had a major influence on (other) popular culture. But their influence is better attested by benchmarks that are actually relevant to being a musical group, such as album/single sales, successful tours, and statements by later musicians saying that The Who was influential on them. These can all be put in the main article. Any other way of conveying the idea of influence will do nothing but be a collection of trivia. Andrew Levine 06:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Andrew Levine, just a random collection of unencyclopedic facts. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:48, 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} 13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category tree is extensive. I've been reviewing the articles and as I find ones I consider AFD-able I'm AFD-ing them. It takes some time to do that. The AC/DC article was just nominated and closed with no consensus. If a consensus develops that these sorts of articles should be deleted, the AC/DC article can be renominated. Otto4711 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems The Who's contributions to modern culture are notable, including having the theme song to what was the #1 ranked show on television. While I do not listen to them personally, the article makes a strong case for notability. Bbagot 19:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band is notable and no one is suggesting otherwise. The notability of the band, however, does not confer notability onto every appearance of the band, its music, or random photo of a band member drawn from every other medium ever. Otto4711 06:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft, any sourced information can be added to the main article. Ckessler 06:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To quote from my arguments given in the number of other 'in popular culture' articles: 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, "in Popular Culture" equals "in American Culture." This is unencyclopedic and US-centric (or at least Western-centric). --The Way 08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with The Way that all "In popular culture" articles should be deleted, but THIS one definitely should, it's nothing but insignificant trivia. Furthermore, no article on this topic should exist either.. The Who are an element of popular culture, anything really worth having should become part of the main article. Mango juice^talk 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs some work and sources, but it is an article worth saving. The main The Who article is already too long and this article shouldn't be merged with it under any circumstances. TheWho822 4:22, 21 February 2007

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.