Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano in popular culture

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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piano in popular culture

Piano in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - a listing of fictional works in which pianos appear is trivial beyond the point of usefulness. If such a list could ever be completed, it would have thousands upon thousands of entries. None of the current entries contain any context for the piano's appearance in the work of fiction from which it is drawn and no assertion of real-world importance for these appearances. Otto4711 19:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per "none of the current entries contain any context for the piano's appearance in the work of fiction from which it is drawn". Other reasons may be applicable as well, but I think this alone suffices. -- Black Falcon 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The purpose of this page is not to exist for its own sake but to keep garbage off the page for Piano. This is a standard practice on the Wikipedia; for discussion, see Category talk:In popular culture. So please, make it easier for the editors who work on Piano to keep this article free of junk by retaining the popular-culture page. Opus33 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is not my intention to cause the people who edit Piano problems. However, offloading garbage information from that article to this one does not solve the problem, merely makes it someone else's problem. Otto4711 04:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• It's no problem at all. It's not cluttering anything and it doesn't actively violate any rules. Cosmetor 08:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I am taking an opposite view to that I have taken with Piano wire in popular culture below. This article is likely to keep growing as more and more people add more references. It would be undesirable for a serious article on the piano to be spoilt by this excrescence. However, Popular culture in the piano article needs to be promoted to a main heading there. The present article is a weak one, but should be tagged for improvement, rather than deleted. Peterkingiron 09:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I guess I'm a little confused as to why you would want to keep "excrescence" in any article at all. Otto4711 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If people want to remove nonsense like this from Piano, why don't they just delete it rather than create a new article for it? Saikokira 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this article suffers a Catch22 - if it is comprehensive, it is unmaintable. --MacRusgail 03:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as the subject is fine, but the current article needs massive work. —siroχo 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is no reason except the nominator's POV, and Wikipedia is against POV. Cosmetor 08:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:SUMMARY, it is useful to have subarticles that go into detail about pop culture references and provide such lists. While these types of articles don't interest me, there are plenty of people who are obviously interested in this sort of information -- hence pop culture references and material keeps appearing across Wikipedia. Piano is a pretty broad topic with enough different facets to cover in the main article, that a subarticle/list is appropriate in this case. --Aude (talk) 22:46, 23 February 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.