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 keep. Majorly (hot!) 15:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonlight Sonata in popular culture[edit]

From the article: "it is unsurprising that the work, and particularly its first movement, should frequently appear in works of popular culture. This article is a listing of these appearances." Basically then, it could be re-named List of references to the Moonlight Sonata in popular culture, this is clearly an unmanageable list, that has a virtually unlimited number of potential items. The article appears to attempt to list every single time the piece is used as backround music in television, movies and video games, as well as every musical piece it has inspired. In addition, not a single item is sourced. Dr bab 12:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dr bab 12:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the sonata's article. Why to delete teh information?--Ioannes Pragensis 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or selectively merge with the article in chief on Beethoven's Sonata #14. Beethoven and the Sonata are not notable for any other reason than that the music is widely performed and alluded to, enough to become a point of cultural reference. If this information is "indiscriminate" or "trivial," then the articles on Beethoven or the Sonata should be deleted along with it.
Also, the claim that most or all of the statements in this article are "unreferenced" is deeply unconvincing. If you recognize the Sonata's music in a full performance, you can recognize a quotation of it elsewhere; pointing this out is not an original hypothesis of a kind that requires further referencing.
Major allusions, direct quotations, and derivative works by major artists of the Sonata probably belong in the article on the Sonata itself. If consensus can't be mustered as to which works deserve that sort of exposure, this should be kept. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are correct that the Sonata is noteable for being performed and listened to, but that does not, in my opinion, mean that every such instance is noteable, and need to be listed. I agree with Mangojuice that a section on the impact of this piece could be appropriate, but an exhaustive list such as this is meaningless. Wikipedia is not about everything, nor should it be. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dr bab 09:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - I did not mean to suggest that each item in this list ought to be retained. Until such time as some kind of consensus arises to determine which appearances of the Sonata are significant enough, though, no information should be removed. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having looked over this exhaustive list, I can't say that any of this stuff is specifically important enough to be described without any form of connecting analysis. Surely, this piece of music is important enough that someone has actually written about its effect on culture: that material can go at the main Moonlight Sonata page, but the rest of this unsourced junk should go. See Talk:Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) for a very typical encapsulated history of how this junk heap came into existence (see also WP:IPC). Mango juice^talk 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this werea subsection of the main article, I'd want it removed for being too trivial. The entire article is basically one big trivia section. I have no prejudice against discussing the cultural impact of the piece in a well sourced legacy section in the main article. Jay32183 22:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per--Ioannes Pragensis, Smerdis of Tlön Lostinlodos 08:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mango. Please do not merge. It would be appropriate to have a few well chosen examples, discussed in context, in the main article, but this is just a mess, that looks like mere rough notes for an article. Postlebury 20:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"mere rough notes for an article" That is how many wiki articles have developed.... Rich Farmbrough, 08:04 25 April 2007 (GMT).

Comment I found this article to be very informative in terms of how many times the Sonata has been used in popular culture. Seeing such a comprehensive list encourages one to listen for the occurrence the next time they encounter that item. It is this completeness of information that keeps me coming back to Wikipedia, and while the presentation perhaps could be tidied up, it should in no way be abridged, reduced or deleted. Steve Roper, Adelaide, South Australia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.45.140.38 (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Your arguments basically boil down to WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. Remember that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dr bab 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - List now is for notable appearances made by the movement "Moonlight Sonata" in popular culture and has a reasonable membership criteria. -- Jreferee 05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge) These "popular culture" articles are a standard fission product of main articles, there's no point deleteing them, having a new sectio in ((main)) article and then having that hived off into a list. Rich Farmbrough, 08:03 25 April 2007 (GMT).
Keep. So long as these pop-culture contributions don't appear in the main article (where they are utterly inappropriate), I'm fine with having pop-culture references -- it tells us what ordinary people are thinking about. Opus33 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument doesn't make any sense. The rules for stand alone articles are stricter than those of subsections. The whole list is trivia, and trivia sections are frowned upon. Splitting the trivia off into its own article is not the solution. Jay32183 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does indeed make sense - sheesh. People read articles about the Moonlight Sonata, and articles about Moonlight Sonata-related pop culture, for quite different reasons, and there's no reason we shouldn't serve both audiences. Opus33 20:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, there is a reason not to serve both audiences. Wikipedia is not a fan site, it is an encyclopedia. Without any analysis the list is meaningless to an encyclopedia, even if people find it useful and interesting. Jay32183 21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jay32183, you are being a pest. Please stop bothering the people who cast votes on these pages. I'm taking this one off my watchlist now, bye. Opus33 22:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        General reminder to everyone because of the above comment. This is not a vote, it is a discussion. If you say something factually wrong, expect some one to call you on it. Jay32183 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the 'in popular culture' articles are not always sensible, I'm in favor of this one because most the of the entries refer to an actual Wikipedia article, and in most cases that article mentions the Moonlight Sonata. I'd be in favor of removing every item from this list that doesn't meet that criterion. This is the same type of justification you will see whenever 'List' articles are debated. I'm OK with reasonable lists where every list item points to a Wikipedia article. If you don't agree with a particular entry, you can always propose the corresponding article for deletion. EdJohnston 20:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists are supposed to be a collection of WIkipedia articles. Lists have to have clear criteria for inclusion. All the things that have Wikipedia articles is actually quite arbitrary. If the list is going to be made, whether the item has an article should not affect the inclusion on the list because it should fit the scope either way. Jay32183 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cited, verifable and notable. Andy Mabbett 13:32, 27 April 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.