359:. 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.
221:
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.
286:
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
203:
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. --
346:
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
220:
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
317:
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.
303:
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.
189:. 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
147:
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
148:
390:. 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.
347:
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). --
121:
166:
94:
89:
98:
81:
250:
262:
17:
363:
382:
370:
351:
334:
322:
308:
291:
277:
246:
237:
225:
208:
176:
155:
63:
257:
or should that also be considered a useless list and get AfD'd? And since this is an internet discussion, I will bring up
407:
36:
85:
266:
258:
77:
69:
406:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
254:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
222:
144:
205:
57:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
271:
136:
132:
360:
140:
391:
379:
331:
319:
288:
234:
197:
173:
152:
378:. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. --
348:
50:
115:
253:
and each category up the tree from there? Would it be allowed if referenced like
305:
233:- per nom and Andrew Levine, just a random collection of unencyclopedic facts.
249:
are being AfD'd. If that's the case, what about most of the articles in
190:
186:
48:. I felt the "delete" arguments here were stronger than the "keeps".
330:
Fancruft, any sourced information can be added to the main article.
400:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
149:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2
111:
107:
103:
251:
Category:Representations of people in popular culture
265:too). Does something make AC/DC more "worthy" than
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
245:- it looks like this, along with most articles in
410:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
165:: This debate has been included in the
247:Category:Musicians in popular culture
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
167:list of Music-related deletions
216:-- The Who is a rock band. It
1:
383:23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
371:01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
352:08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
335:06:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
323:06:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
309:19:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
292:17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
278:13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
238:11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
226:06:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
209:05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
177:03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
156:03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
64:16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
287:article can be renominated.
427:
78:The Who in popular culture
70:The Who in popular culture
403:Please do not modify it.
255:AC/DC in popular culture
32:Please do not modify it.
394:4:22, 21 February 2007
193:, tagging them with
133:indiscriminate list
183:Merge or weak keep
179:
170:
418:
405:
368:
276:
274:
202:
196:
171:
161:
119:
101:
60:
53:
34:
426:
425:
421:
420:
419:
417:
416:
415:
414:
408:deletion review
401:
364:
272:
270:
263:Stephen Hawking
200:
194:
92:
76:
73:
62:
58:
51:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
424:
422:
413:
412:
396:
395:
385:
373:
354:
340:
339:
338:
337:
325:
312:
311:
297:
296:
295:
294:
281:
280:
240:
228:
211:
180:
126:
125:
72:
67:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
423:
411:
409:
404:
398:
397:
393:
389:
386:
384:
381:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
362:
358:
355:
353:
350:
345:
342:
341:
336:
333:
329:
326:
324:
321:
316:
315:
314:
313:
310:
307:
302:
299:
298:
293:
290:
285:
284:
283:
282:
279:
275:
268:
264:
261:(and why not
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
241:
239:
236:
232:
229:
227:
224:
223:Andrew Levine
219:
215:
212:
210:
207:
199:
192:
188:
184:
181:
178:
175:
168:
164:
160:
159:
158:
157:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
131:- this is an
130:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
402:
399:
387:
375:
365:
356:
343:
327:
300:
242:
230:
217:
213:
206:Black Falcon
182:
162:
139:filled with
128:
127:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
273:RevRagnarok
392:TheWho822
380:Stbalbach
267:Aerosmith
141:unsourced
137:directory
332:Ckessler
320:Otto4711
289:Otto4711
235:Moreschi
174:SkierRMH
153:Otto4711
122:View log
59:(o rly?)
349:The Way
328:Delete.
243:Comment
191:The Who
187:The Who
145:trivial
95:protect
90:history
52:Majorly
357:Delete
344:Delete
306:Bbagot
259:Hitler
231:Delete
214:Delete
129:Delete
99:delete
46:delete
366:juice
361:Mango
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
388:Keep
376:Keep
301:Keep
269:? —
198:fact
163:Note
143:and
135:and
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
185:to
172:--
169:.
120:– (
218:is
201:}}
195:{{
151:.
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
124:)
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.