Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural effects of The A-Team

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 merge pertinent information back into The A-Team, per both the delete and merge arguments; article kept as redirect to preserve GFDL history. Krimpet (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural effects of The A-Team

Cultural effects of The A-Team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

trivia fork, full of various mentions of a-team in other media. Not necessary for own article. Biggspowd 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comments - User has history of vandalism. He had placed a PROD on the page, which I removed on the basis of his history as a vandal. As the creator of the article, I also did not recieve a notice of the PROD on my talk page, as recommended for PRODs. On these bases, I do not feel this AfD is a serious action, and smacks of a bicycle shed issue. - BillCJ 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please see this diff for an example of either vandalism or a violation of WP:POINT. I'm sorry for leaving the "point" part out of the above comment, but it is in my removal of his PROD here. Because I did not recieve a notification of the PROD as reconmmended, the action seemed consistent with his previous pattern of behavior, which I did check before removing the PROD. - BillCJ 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comments - Nominator removed this comment as "slander" however looking over his talk page history backs up all the history of vandalism claims, including a one week block. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I made the vandalism/POINT claim on the basis of the usere's prior edits. As it turns out I was wrong, I apologize. I do appreciate the user first posting a PROD, as most trivia-article-deletionist that I have been involved with lack the courtesyt to discuss their concerns first, as someone with a good respect for the WP:AGF guideline would do. Please don't let my assumption of continued bad behaivor on your part push you into bad behavior of another sort. Thanks. - BillCJ 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yes, the article needs work to add more references, but it does have them. The A-Team is a very notable subject, and the article covers that in detail. Its subject is beyond the scope of the main article, and thus suitable for its own article. As the creator of the page, I do keep watch over the article, and it is not just a dump for marginal trivia items. Also, I am fully aware of such as WP:NOT, WP:TRIV, and other such guidelines, but do not feel they apply in this case. In addition, as a regular editor, I am often involved in splitting off sections when the main aritlce becomes too large. We should not be limited in our ability to fork off sections just because some users consider the section trivial. Otherwise the result would eventually be a main article composed soley of {{main}} links and a trivia sections, which would then be AfDed itself as being trivial! - BillCJ 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• merge back into The A-Team. While we can all agree the cultural effects of The A-Team are many and vast, this really belongs in the parent article. Chris 06:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Bad idea. That would make The A-Team article too large and messy again. We (BillCJ and I) made this into a separate article in order to keep the parent article to have a reasonable length (Note that there are thousands of such "daughter articles" on Wikipedia!). See also Emperor's comments below. →EdGl 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've worked on a number of "in popular culture" and "cultural depictions of" entries (see Category:In popular culture) and this fits perfectly well with those entries (perhaps a name change might make this explicit?). It can be improved (can't they all) but that is something that can be done with identifying problematic additions to the page and flagging or removing them (As I've recently been doing with Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture - see talk page). So leaving aside whether this is or isn't a bad faith nomination I wanted to say that it is a solid entry that fits well within the remit of Wikipedia. On the merge suggestion: The A-Team entry is already flagged as being 31kb so merging back into the entry would only result in it being split back out again to its own entry (as has happened on numerous occasions - the Poe example I gave being the msot recent one I've worked on). (Emperor 12:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
• Comment: whatever happens this needs renames. It is full of cultural and media references to the A-team, but it isn't about the cultural effects whatsoever. Doesn't do what it says on the tine. In fact, perhaps best deleting this as an indiscriminate collection of fancruft.--Doc^g 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support a move to The A-Team in popular culture. →EdGl 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per precident (we have thousands of "daughter articles" and thousands of "in popular culture" articles). I know we are to avoid keep votes with the reason "because article xxxx exists", but really there is nothing different from this article and similar articles. What is lacking we can improve (Thanks Emperor for suggestions on the talk page!). This article needs time to go through the "wiki process" and to continue to be improved by me, BillCJ, and others interested in helping. →EdGl 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - over the last several months we have deleted innumerable "in popular culture" articles on topics ranging from TV shows to films to people to weapons to bands. Precedent does not support the automatic keeping of these articles. Otto4711 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Okay then, so ignore the first two sentences in my vote explanation. The main idea I was trying to get across is that there are at least two users (BillCJ and I) who are willing to put effort into this article to improve it. This article needs a chance to improve, which is what Wikipedia is all about. What ever happened to eventualism? →EdGl 17:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is nothing to improve... there are no reliable sources that discuss the significance of the A-Team in popular culture because, when you get down to it, there is no real impact -- this has simply become a place for everyone to list where they've seen A-Team references... far past the mission and guidelines of Wikipedia. /Blaxthos 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply One of the ways to improve this article is to find reliable sources for the statements in the article. For example, one could probably find a movie review that mentions an A-Team reference in that particular movie. This is what I had in mind when I said "improvement," along with eliminating entries that are too trivial even for a "trivia page!" (Meaning ones that are truly impossible to find sources for. I believe there are some sources out there for several of those entries.) →EdGl 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've posted a number of suggestions on the talk page based on experience gained from working on other entries within the general in popular culture area (that is just an opening salvo and there is more that can be done). I'd also contest the notion that there has been no cultural impact - there are at least 4 classic stereotypes arising from the series which are instantly recognisable: The distinctive foursome, the tune, the van and their constructing impossible machines from a random selection of found objects. (Emperor 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

I think you guys are missing the point... this content is simply not information appropriate for Wikipedia... we're not a place to house every pop culture reference. If it's notable, incorporate it into the main article (A-Team or whatever)... but this is why it got moved out of the article -- it's not appropriate content. /Blaxthos 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You see I don't think I am missing the point. From your coments it appears you also think that some of this information is relevant (as you think it shouls be put back into the main entry). I also agree there is informaiton in the entry under discussion which shouldn't be there and relevant information that should remain in Wikipedia. The difference seems to be that I think we can clean up the current entry and make it useful - the presence of some suspect information should be dealt with by an attempt to tdy things up before going straight for deletion. Putting it back into the main entry will end up with it expanding again, growing too big for the entry and getting split off again (the reason I thought this was split off in the first place [1]). What I'd rather do is address the problems here and now (rather than shoving them around) and work up a consensus on what should and shouldn't be kept and devise a way forward that works to everyone's satisfaction so we have a long term solution. Now I might be misreading what you have said but I suspect our positions aren't actually that different ;) (Emperor 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

• Merge the last two sections only to another article on the A-Team as somewhat notable instances of the surviving cast members. The first section, chock full as it is of such incredibly important tidbits as how Stephen Colbert asked a fictional president to pardon them or that a picture of them appeared on someone's desk in a TV show, is unadulterated and irredeemable trivial garbage and should not be preserved in any form. Otto4711 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as largely unreferenced and original research. "there is an article about so-and-so" is absolutely not a valid argument for keeping more of the same -- bottom line, it fails a large number of our core policies/guidelines... WP:ATT (WP:V), WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, etc. Wikipedia isn't the place for fans to list how they think a TV series has affected their lives or popular culture. /Blaxthos 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As already mentioned, every article must be judged on its own, the existence of similar articles is not a valid argument. In fact countless articles like this have been deleted. The article is not useful in any sort of encyclopedic way (in my opinion of course) consisting entirely of minute trivia. "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" (WP:NOT#IINFO). Pax:Vobiscum 16:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As already mentioned, every article must be judged on its own. The deletions of similar articles is not a valid argument. In fact, numerous articles like this have been kept. - BillCJ 16:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You are quite right. :) I only mentioned it to emphasize the problem with using existing articles as arguments. Pax:Vobiscum 07:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are indeed problems with the entry (a lot of those mentions are so trivial as to not be worthy of mentioning) but the various parodies (notably Brian Goes Back to College which forms the bulk of the episode) are notable. The classic four man line up (and the theme tune) has had a pop cultural impact and are instantly recognisable. Bring Back... The A-Team is just the most striking recent example of this. (Emperor 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
• Delete I have no problems with articles like this, but editors need to realize that when they create one it needs to be well-referenced and carefully constructed to avoid OR. If it's a pile of unreferenced cruft like this it's gonna get deleted, especially if the show is borderline in terms of cultural impact. Quadzilla99 22:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it needs work, but there's enough stuff there to make a proper article out of. Merging would bloat The A Team too much - the very definition of a need to fork. --h2g2bob (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge relevant info back to the main "The A-Team" article. While I have spent hours cleaning up this list (when it was still part of the A-Team article), I am by no means attached to it. I think the relevant stuff could be merged into the main article, such as:

  As well as having huge ratings and being especially popular amongst children, there was countless merchandise available, including action figures of the characters, as well as their famous van and car. A cola flavored popsicle in the shape of Mr. T was also on the market at the show's height. Marvel Comics even produced a three issue A-Team comic book series. Mr. T has also appeared in his own comic books.

...There could be a simple paragraph about the cultural impact of "The A-Team" on the main article without all the "The A-Team was referenced on this Family Guy episode..." garbage. I also think the last section about the reunion show should be put on the main article, rather than tagged on to the end of this list. Wavy G 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - An encyclopaedic subject, I've no problem with documenting real-world impact. (WP:NOT#PAPER) Matthew 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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.