Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references to Frank Zappa

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural references to Frank Zappa

Cultural references to Frank Zappa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - this is an indiscriminate collection of information and a directory, seeking to capture every reference to Zappa in every medium with no regard to the importance or triviality of the appearance in the source medium or the real world. Oppose merging the content back into the main Frank Zappa article. Otto4711 14:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, some of this stuff is interesting, but not terribly important. Keep as a useful and necessary list. ObtuseAngle 17:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument for keeping. All sorts of things are useful while still being unencyclopedic. And I dispute that a list of every time Frank Zappa is name-checked in any form of media is "useful." Otto4711 15:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but that's not what this list is in its entrirety. Zappa has an extensive filmography which is scarcely referenced in his main article, for instance. I agree, it's not noteworthy every time a garage band namechecks Zappa in a song, but that's an argument for editing and sourcing the article, not for deleting it. ObtuseAngle 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Like any artist, his TV/film appearances would go into his filmography, which doesn't exactly belong in Frank Zappa discography or Frank Zappa (length issue). Note that these appearances are not mere cultural references but directly relevant to the man himself, and should be considered separately from this article. If delete, merge it somewhere. All those species and other things named after him are notable; they didn't just name those things after him so the information could be hidden. If delete, merge this last section into Frank Zappa. The song references do need explanations and sources, but each reference is important and non-trivial - how easy would it be to confuse a reference to Frank Zappa for some odd coincidence? This list is quite discriminate; it has a clear scope and will not achieve unmaintainable size. If you cut out the supposedly "trivial" references, then it becomes too discriminate in a POV way. –Pomte 19:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• This article is not a filmography. If it were a properly sourced filmography I would have no issue with it. This is a collection of every reference to the man bunged together. We have deleted similar articles for Jimi Hendrix, The Who, Aerosmith, Rush, Aleister Crowley and others for being similarly bunged together lists. Otto4711 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that a collection of every reference to this particular man is quite an encyclopedic subject. Your precedents form an indiscriminate collection of AfDs and a directory, seeking to capture every case that could serve to favor a bandwagon with no regard to the notability of the individual articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia (3rd nomination) for a counterexample. –Pomte 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• What a cute entry. It was adorable how you took my words and repurposed them to try to discredit the arguments for deletion. Got anything to say that actually pertains to the nomination? Otto4711 04:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• See below for my comment. I would also like to direct you to this page. People will disagree with you ... deal with it (and move on). I know you have valid reasons for not doing a bulk nomination, but when you nominate articles separately, each will be considered on its own merits. As much as I hate the name of that redirect, it can make a point quite strongly: WP:OTHERCRAPWASDELETED is not a valid reason to delete this article unless the articles are identical in nature. Obviously, there is disagreement about the extent to which they are identical. I am also posting a comment on your talk page. -- Black Falcon 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep failing that a selective merge. Some of the information is useful enough to be worked into the main Frank Zappa article; like films he has made cameo appearances in, however, films where his music has merely been in the background do not deserve a mention. Some of the stuff in the comic strip section is notable, but it does need references. I don't find the "In songs" section notable, but the "Things named after Zappa" section is indeed very notable - there's not a lot of people that can say several animals, among other things, have been named after them, though some of what's listed needs refs. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 20:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you thought this belonged in the Zappa article I have to ask why you forked it off to begin with. Otto4711 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's irrelevant to this discussion. But anyway, I didn't say it all belonged in the Zappa article, I said some stuff could be worked back into the main Zappa article if it is to be deleted. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it kind of is relevant, since it contradicts in large measure your stated reason for wanting to keep this article or merge any of its contents back where it came from. Otto4711 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand how it contradicts my stated for wanting to keep the article; I never stated this information belonged in the Zappa article, just that parts of it can be merged if need be. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. A misguided nomination. The whole Category:In popular culture exists, to strip various articles off huge "Trivia" sections. `'mikka 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BHTT and WP:AVTRIV. If the best or only reason for an article full of trivia is to keep it out of the main article then the trivia article should be deleted. The solution to crap information in an article is to delete it, not fork it off and make it into someone else's problem. Note that a number of "...in popular culture" articles (including the ones I linked above and many others) are being deleted. Otto4711 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• A number are being kept. –Pomte 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Most are being deleted. Otto4711 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - people have already started referencing this, this is our chance for an encyclopedic article on the subject. Also, per WP:LIST - information and navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 10:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• And again, WP:LIST is not the end-all be-all. If a list is otherwise unacceptable, then letter-perfect conformity with WP:LIST does not save it. Otto4711 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's not indisciminate. It's about Frank Zappa and relted cultural references. - Peregrine Fisher 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• And the Hendrix list was about Hendrix and cultural references. Deleted as indiscriminate. The Who list was about the Who and cultural references. Deleted as indiscriminate. The Aerosmith list was about Aerosmith and cultural references. Deleted as indiscriminate. The C96 list, the Semtex list, the Calvin and Hobbes list, and on and on, all lists about the subject and cultural references. All deleted as indiscriminate. Otto4711 20:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Then do a bulk nomination to settle the matter. This stand-alone nomination implies that we should analyze the importance of this particular article only. –Pomte 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not every pop culture article is as poor as this one. A mass nom would get bogged down and would accomplish nothing. Otto4711 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Not every reference to him needs to be mentioned. Whatever's notable can go in the main Frank Zappa article. Chevinki 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• First, we would need criteria for which items is notable and explain why the ones leftover are not. –Pomte 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep While the current version indeed is unsatisfactory, I find lot of the information useful. I guess this is not the place to discuss the justice of other similiar pages being deleted. We should focus on this one.(I could, but won't, come up with lots of examples of articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted but are not - this is also irrelevant here.) The article could in my opinion be a nice piece about the influences of Frank Zappa on media and society in general. I will be happy to help out when time permits. --HJ 09:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument in favor of keeping an article.Otto4711 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok. Point taken. Then just stick with the rest of my entry, and forget about this bad word. As I see all the guidelines, they are all rely - to some extent - on subjectivity in the end. Well, I think the article is worth improving istead of deleting.--HJ 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per excellent reasons given by Pomte and others. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Having participated in a number of the other "in popular culture" and "cultural reference" article, I can say that none of the lists included such notable things as species being named after a person. A merge may be appropriate, but it is better to determine that on the talk page rather than AFD. -- Black Falcon 03:39, 13 March 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.