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. Nishkid 64 19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush in popular culture

[edit]

Rewritten version of external source [1] already cited in Rush (band), not an encyclopedia article, merely a list of Rush t-shirt and poster sightings on TV and movies and so forth. The last AFD had an overwhelming consensus to merge, but the closing admin was of the opinion that "merge" was outside the scope of AFD and confusingly closed it as "no consensus". I merged it according to consensus some time ago, but a couple people strongly object due to the previous, confusing AFD result, which brings us here. Philwelch 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The existing form of the article is certainly not in optimal form and needs pruning and rewriting. On the other hand, I reverted an edit that overrode the entire article content with a mere redirect to Rush: there is too much content here to simply throw away, either. Hopefully some middle ground can be found. N.B.: The personal conflict that has existed regarding this article should be completely absent from this discussion. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why did you even mention it, Brad? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but merging generally involves moving content from one article to another, and redirecting to the merged article. I'm not sure how they do it in New York :P Philwelch 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (1) Preemptively, but if it was unnecessary and proves irrelevant, so much the better. (2) From the prior talkpage discussion, my understanding is that the current content of Rush in popular culture was taken out of Rush (band) as the result of a discussion on featured article review, and I didn't see any indication that any of it was reinserted when you changed the former article into a redirect. "Merge," of course, is one plausible outcome to this discussion. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read my summary above. I did in fact merge this article into Rush (band) after the initial AfD. This was some time after the entire FA process had concluded. Philwelch 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - (You added that last sentence to the AfD while I had already seen it and was thinking through my response. Let's see what the others think.) Newyorkbrad 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        [2] the diff in which PhilWelch 'merges' the two. It consists of a link, and single-line statement. ThuranX 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- [[3]] Demonstrates consensus to merge based on PhilWelch's assessment of the previous AfD. Circumventing Merge intent with a second AfD Nom by the same editor. Contradicting PhilWelch is that during the Rush page's FA review, it was the recommendation to split the Popular Culture into it's own page, and this was done[4]. Now Phil suggests that it's plagarised from a website, (the website may well have cribbed from wikipedia), and should be merged. I ask that PhilWelch on the article's talk page substantiate his allegation of plagarism, or rescind the allegation, and the resultant AfD, as it's clear from the relevant talk pages [Rush in popular culture], and [Rush], that editors are aware of the need for a merge, but all efforts appeared to stop after 11 Dec, when PhilWelch turned the entire page into a redirect. ThuranX 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The website didn't take it from Wikipedia. The "in popular culture" used Power Windows as a reference from the point the list really began. Besides, even if it was, that further strengthens the reason to delete, because there would be no reliable sources. Not to metion Power Windows isn't technically a reliable source to begin with. And not to mention the site uses direct quotes and other cites that this Wikipedia article does not. — Deckill er 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evidence thereof? ThuranX 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here, direct quotes and cites are being used. But that's not the problem - the problem is that these are not sourced, so there is no reliability there. Moreover, some entries on this article are not taken from that site; they are just dropped by people noticing them on TV or whatever. That is not what Wikipedia is about. — Deckill er 02:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nothing thee seems to readily display when that page was written. As we've seen,there are numerous Mirrors of Wikipedia. can you demonstrate indubitably that PW came first, and then WP? ThuranX 02:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wayback Machine shows an early 2002 version of the Power Windows page: [5]. [6], four years before the first revision to this page [7]. At the time the Power Windows page was first posted, Rush (band), the article this was split out of, looked like this: [8]. Philwelch 02:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I thought I made it clear that it was an obsolete point, because the article's reliability would be weaker if it was a mirror. But if you insist, this was when the initial trivia section was added by User:Wisdom89. This was the first time such information was included. The popular culture section was then added by Wisdom here. Several days later, while going through and sourcing his additions, Wisdom89 added the power windows ref: [9]. Furthermore, the Power Windows site has been operational since 1997, as Phil has explained above. But like I said, it's a moot point; either way, the source is unreliable, because Power Windows is a fansite, and the alternative - no sources (which has been essensially proven otherwise) - means excessive OR and lack of any sourcing for months. — Deckill er 02:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — list of trivia trying to show that Rush is common in popular culture. It's plauged by WP:OR and reliance on one fan site for reference. The mention that Rush has been influenced in popular culture on the main page is fine, becuase virtually all this information comes from that one site, which is already linked to and mentioned in the main article. Redirect is unnecessary, because nothing is merged and most of the edit history we'd be preserving is edit warring and info thrown out. Besides, to quote the usuals: WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information, violates the various offshoots of the Manual of Style, which state (on WP:AVTRIV based on a larger consensus than a group of editors on the Rush talkpage), that articles that are lists of trivia or isolated facts are to be avoided. And like I said, they're all from one source, which fails WP:RS to begin with. Once again, Delete.— Deckill er 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is now about the community consensus as a whole, not just the Rush talkpage consensus. PhilWelch felt the need to bring the entire community into this issue, and I agree with that decision. — Deckill er 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 there was a general agreement to merge after the last AfD, but nothing ever happened. And now that I've been around longer, I see how obsolete it is to have a list of trivia, because it encourages expansion and OR and so on, especially when only one unreliable source is given. — Deckill er 23:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the emerging consensus in this debate is..."comment"!? Philwelch 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it needs to be made clear that we cannot "merge" this information without merging the entire thing. Otherwise, we'd be inviting POV. Let's remember that most Movie and band featured articles don't have long lists of "in popular culture" sections. There is a whole fan site devoted to that; we make a cite, and we provide the link. That's our job. That's it. I don't see how a few points can be merged, because then the issue is...what points to merge, and how do we prevent people from including more or their own OR? I'm no deletionist, I lawywer the "preserve the edit history", I'm a mergist to the core, and even I see no way to merge this information logically, based on how Wikipedia is now. — Deckill er 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried, but you may be right. Citing this list's source in Rush (band), which is the most I would (and have) done, may not qualify so much as a merge. Philwelch 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comment. This is not PhilWelch's RfAr, this is AfD. Let's stay tightly focused on the article in terms of: should it be kept, should it be deleted, or should it be integrated into the main article? Please put the past behind and focus on the topic and our options. — Deckill er 00:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You voted three times for "comment"! Philwelch 23:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no reason why consensus could not be reached on the main articles talk page regarding which examples to rework into the Rush (band) article in a nice orderly prose-esque format. Dump or eschew the sightings of Rush paraphernalia in movies/TV shows (as this is clearly pushing the limit) and concentrate on references which are obviously of merit such as the use of the band's music or direct laudatory (or critical) verbal allusions. There are plenty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wisdom89 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Wikipedia has been shunning "in popular culture" lists for a while now, especially when the lists are taken from one source. All we need to do is provide a link to that source, since encyclopedias have always been gateways into a topic. — Deckill er 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - We do not need collections of every mention of a band ever made in any movie, TV show, etc. regardless of how substantive or trivial that mention is. Also echo the OR concerns expressed by others. Otto4711 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I summon a comment! I mean, Delete; it seems there's been a lot of time to deal with the issues raised above and it's not happening. JuJube 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a large, unencyclopedic list of trivia, two things that we are trying to stay away from in articles: lists and trivia sections, that's all this article is. If the information was needed, it would be in the main Rush article. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic cruft article. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking sources and appears to be original research. I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want to consult this anyway. Spartaz 16:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you need to know that in A Nightmare on Elm Street, Nov. 1984 in the bedroom of one of the teenage characters (played by Johnny Depp), a Grace Under Pressure album cover poster can be seen on the wall above his bed. Freshacconci 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Delete per Otto4711. Freshacconci 19:18, 14 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.