Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush 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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. If it is really felt that this article must be merged, AfD is not the place for it. We have this thing called a talk page, you know... Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush in popular culture

A list of references to the band Rush in sundry movies and TV shows, often limited to single appearances of a Rush t-shirt or something. I'm a big Rush fan myself, but despite Wikipedia's systematic bias towards Rush fandom, I think we can all agree this is pure fancruft. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge back into Rush. This is a well-meaning spinoff in support of its current FA nomination. However, I think it's too short to merit a separate article. Daniel Case 21:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely do not agree with nom. This was just spun-out of main article because of length. The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. -- JJay 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain how it's "vital" to have a list of times a Rush t-shirt appears on TV. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The material is vital because it demonstrates this band's impact on popular culture. It shows that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70s. Seems pretty clear to me and I think if Rush has had even more of an impact the info should be added to the article -- JJay 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Rush (band) makes it perfectly clear that Rush was more than some hack band that had a few moments of glory back in the 70's. And I quote: "Rush's three decades of continued success under their current lineup of Lee, Lifeson, and Peart has earned the band the respect of their musical peers, and their supporters are often cited as one of the most intensely loyal fanbases in the history of rock. Rush have also had a profound musical influence on such artists as Dream Theater, Symphony X, Shadow Gallery, Primus, Metallica, Smashing Pumpkins, and fellow Canadian rockers The Barenaked Ladies.", ""Rush has been awarded the Juno Award[1] several times and were inducted into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame in 1994[2] (For a complete awards list see the "see also" section below). Additionally, Lee, Lifeson, and Peart are all Officers of the Order of Canada.", "As a whole, the band boasts 23 gold records and 14 platinum (3 multi-platinum) records making them one of the best selling rock artists in history." In contrast, "Rush in popular culture" includes such enlightening information as: "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." If you consider *that* vital information about Rush, I don't know what I can say. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 02:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, this article gives cold, hard facts about what TV shows and movies have used their music. Secondly, much of what you quote is unsourced such as the lines regarding their influence. I don't see why the info is not complementary. If they truly had the reach you claim, this article can probably be greatly expanded.-- JJay 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's unencyclopedic fandom. Brian G. Crawford 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge trivia never deserves an article for itself, because by definition it's nn. Eivind^t@c 21:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Not quite good enough on its own, but not bad enough to be deleted ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is trivia, not an article. Whatever content here is useful can certainly be included in Rush (band). Friday (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Rush (band). The group is notable but hardly pervasive enough in popular culture to warrant an entire article on pop culture references to it. 23skidoo 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• merge as per above. Roodog2k 14:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• 'merge back into Rush (band). 66.57.87.50 17:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per the above MLA 10:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back and keep only 4 or 5 bits. — Deckiller 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this is a valid subarticle, containing useful information, and there is no need to clutter the main article with this type of list. Skeezix1000 13:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid (and useful) sub-article of Rush (band). --maclean25 01:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back to Rush (band) and omit insignificant bits Wisdom89 15:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, else merge. Samaritan 01:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, merge, merge! Let's preserve this encyclopedia's credibility by not letting it become bloated with unnecessary articles that would be laughed at if they showed up in a print encyclopedia! Proving that a person or group or whatever is relevant to popular culture does not require an exhaustive list of every time they show up - some noteworthy examples that prove the point are sufficient.

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.