515:
even if you don't agree it's notable. Basically this is no different than any other album article, which are generally broken out only due to style considerations, and mostly inherit notability from their band. What policy are you referring to when you say notability is not inherited? The notion
374:- REM's relationship with the Late Show is very notable and important within the band history. This is essentially content that should go in the main REM article, but won't fit and would be stylistically awkward. It should just be tagged with the {{subArticle}} tag and left alone.
424:
The only thing that is really notable on the page is that the group made their debut on the show and that could easily be mentioned at the main REM article. The rest is just overdetailing about their six performances. I don't see why it needs its own entire article. --
434:
I don't see why the information should be dumped just because you don't find it interesting. I don't find it overdetailed at all. The information is quite basic, actually; it's just laid out in a way that takes up room to make it easily readable (like information
493:
So are you saying that an article for the debut television appearance of every single notable band should be made? Bexause you're basic argument seems to be "it's a notable band on a notable show" and you seem to be forgetting that
Notability is not inherited. --
223:
Six vastly seperated appearances on a late night talk show is not that notable, and there are no sources to prove this is notable. The fact that they debuted on television on the show can easily be mentioned at the REM page. --
453:
You still haven't found any sources to prove that it is important information worthy of its own article. They just appear to be normal promotional appearances and nothing really notable, other than their debut, occured. --
388:
Do you have any sources to prove that their six appearances over 20 years are notable? There are much more notable group-TV show relationships, like the
Beatles and the Ed Sullivan show and yet there is no
585:
It is to me. Any such list that relates to content of this nature has no real meaning in the outside world. So they've played half a dozen times on one particular TV show, what's notable about that? -
88:
83:
92:
75:
121:
264:
402:
The article asserts that the group made their international TV debut on
Letterman, which began the relationship. Beyond that, the bulk of this article is covered by
238:
347:
Keeping track of which band was on what late-night show when just isn't a job for an encyclopedia, especially not in an article all its own.
151:
647:
626:
594:
580:
562:
529:
498:
488:
458:
448:
429:
419:
397:
383:
366:
339:
322:
297:
279:
253:
228:
213:
187:
146:
57:
621:
17:
133:
167:
79:
208:
182:
507:
band is notable and that the relationship and information about their subsequent performances is appropriate material for the
71:
63:
390:
665:
36:
155:
517:
664:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
616:
590:
558:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
410:
logic - the
Beatles appeared fewer times and the Sullivan show ran for far less time than Letterman's shows.
407:
611:
643:
53:
476:
335:
204:
178:
586:
554:
568:
330:. Interesting, but way beyond trivial - belongs on a fan site or in a book, perhaps, not on WP.
572:
521:
480:
440:
411:
375:
138:
495:
455:
426:
394:
306:
274:
248:
225:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
472:
639:
318:
294:
49:
512:
403:
576:
525:
484:
444:
415:
379:
331:
285:
Okay, so they appeared on a late-night TV show to perform and promote themselves. And...?
197:
171:
142:
196:
as no reason was given by the nominator who added the AfD template to the article page.
348:
271:
245:
159:
109:
314:
310:
290:
634:
The most notable information contained in this article is already included in
471:
article that doesn't fit into the main article, and is separated out due to
467:
it's notable. I also consider the article just to be part of the main
635:
607:
508:
468:
638:(a Featured Article, by the way). Everything else is unnecessary.
658:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
511:
article, which this is essentially part of, and thus covered by
170:
as to why he/she is considering this article for deletion.
116:
105:
101:
97:
479:
articles, it's not supposed to be in total isolation.
463:
I'm not really looking. That it was their TV debut
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
668:). No further edits should be made to this page.
265:list of Television-related deletion discussions
406:. The Beatles/Sullivan connection is flawed
134:List of R.E.M. appearances on David Letterman
8:
606:Pertinent information should be merged with
239:list of Music-related deletion discussions
503:No, I'm saying the TV network debut from
263:: This debate has been included in the
237:: This debate has been included in the
72:Late Show with David Letterman (R.E.M.)
64:Late Show with David Letterman (R.E.M.)
162:template to the article and has given
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
391:The Ed Sullivan Show (The Beatles)
24:
131:- This article has been moved to
520:is an absolute rule is a myth.
475:restrictions. Like any other
1:
648:06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
627:00:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
595:05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
581:19:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
563:06:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
530:01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
499:01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
489:01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
459:01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
449:01:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
430:01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
420:01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
398:00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
384:00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
367:19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
340:18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
323:17:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
298:15:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
280:14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
254:14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
229:14:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
214:13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
188:13:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
147:02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
58:07:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
553:- trivia in the extreme. -
685:
289:as almost-sub-trivial. --
661:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
168:article's talk page
282:
268:
256:
242:
676:
663:
624:
619:
614:
477:List of whatever
364:
361:
358:
355:
277:
269:
259:
251:
243:
233:
212:
186:
119:
113:
95:
34:
684:
683:
679:
678:
677:
675:
674:
673:
672:
666:deletion review
659:
622:
617:
612:
518:WP:NOTINHERITED
362:
359:
356:
353:
275:
249:
202:
176:
152:192.138.214.102
115:
86:
70:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
682:
680:
671:
670:
653:
651:
650:
629:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
473:size and style
439:be laid out).
369:
349:Andrew Lenahan
342:
325:
300:
283:
257:
231:
217:
216:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
681:
669:
667:
662:
656:
655:
654:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
630:
628:
625:
620:
615:
609:
605:
602:
596:
592:
588:
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
531:
527:
523:
519:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
497:
492:
491:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:
460:
457:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
438:
433:
432:
431:
428:
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
408:WP:OTHERSTUFF
405:
401:
400:
399:
396:
392:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
370:
368:
365:
350:
346:
343:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:
299:
296:
292:
288:
284:
281:
278:
273:
266:
262:
258:
255:
252:
247:
240:
236:
232:
230:
227:
222:
219:
218:
215:
210:
206:
201:
200:
195:
192:
191:
190:
189:
184:
180:
175:
174:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
148:
144:
140:
136:
135:
130:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
660:
657:
652:
631:
603:
550:
504:
464:
436:
393:article. --
371:
352:
344:
327:
302:
286:
260:
234:
220:
198:
193:
172:
163:
158:) added the
150:
132:
128:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
640:WesleyDodds
50:Bongwarrior
569:not trivia
332:Duncan1800
199:Lightsup55
173:Lightsup55
164:no reason
496:Scorpion
456:Scorpion
427:Scorpion
395:Scorpion
307:Scorpion
226:Scorpion
122:View log
272:the wub
246:the wub
166:on the
89:protect
84:history
636:R.E.M.
632:Delete
610:. —
608:R.E.M.
604:Delete
551:Delete
513:WP:NNC
509:R.E.M.
469:R.E.M.
437:should
404:WP:NNC
345:Delete
328:Delete
315:JohnCD
311:Calton
303:Delete
291:Calton
287:Delete
221:Delete
117:delete
93:delete
46:delete
618:Maker
613:Music
573:Torc2
567:It's
522:Torc2
516:that
481:Torc2
465:means
441:Torc2
412:Torc2
376:Torc2
139:Torc2
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
644:talk
623:5376
591:talk
587:fchd
577:talk
559:talk
555:fchd
526:talk
505:this
485:talk
445:talk
416:talk
380:talk
372:Keep
336:talk
319:talk
309:and
305:per
295:Talk
276:"?!"
261:Note
250:"?!"
235:Note
194:Keep
156:talk
143:talk
129:NOTE
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
48:. --
360:bli
270:--
267:.
244:--
241:.
160:AfD
646:)
593:)
579:)
571:.
561:)
528:)
487:)
447:)
418:)
382:)
363:nd
357:ar
354:St
351:-
338:)
321:)
313:.
293:|
207:|
203:(
181:|
177:(
145:)
137:.
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
642:(
589:(
575:(
557:(
524:(
483:(
443:(
414:(
378:(
334:(
317:(
211:)
209:C
205:T
185:)
183:C
179:T
154:(
141:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.