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 redirect and possible merge to AC/DC. Most of the keep arguments fail to address the issue of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. The relevant portions of this article can be merged at editorial discretion, the edit-history remains intact. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete This is the third nomination for this article, but I hope those who are going to look at that fact and be inclined to !vote "keep" because it has survived previous AFDs will look at the article and at the quality of the "keep" arguments. In the 1st AFD, two of the four keepers appealed to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX, arguing that if this article is deleted then other similar articles would also be deleted. In the 2nd, three out of the four "keeps" were based on the notion that the article could be improved and the other keeper at least partially agreed with the nomination. As to why this article should be deleted, it falls under WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:AVTRIVIA. The mere presence of something that AC/DC did or that a character in a movie is dressed like a member of AC/DC or that someone drew a picture of an AC/DC member for an album cover for another band tells us nothing about AC/DC or the thing in which AC/DC appears or the real world. The fact that a character wears an AC/DC t-shirt or regrets missing an AC/DC concert is trivial and again tells us nothing about the band, the fiction it's drawn from or the real world. A strong consensus has emerged that it is not notable that an artist covered another artist's song and over a dozen lists of such cover songs have been deleted. The only part of this article that is encyclopedic is the list of tribute albums, and I have preserved that in List of AC/DC tribute albums and located it where it belongs in Category:Tribute albums. This article is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. Otto4711 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - the first AFD for this article is found here under a different article title. Otto4711 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. Wikipedia is not a repository of trivia. The band AC/DC is part of popular culture. Some of the entries in this article are really about ac/dc current!! --Charlene 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that need for cleanup is not a ground for deletion - often crap ends up in articles which simply should not be there, but the subject itself is notable of an article and a decent article *can* be written. Orderinchaos 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then let's delete this article, which is not decent, and then someone can write a decent article. Otto4711 12:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is sourced and most of the references appear relevant. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that an article is sourced does not mean that the rest of WIkipolicies don't apply. Simply saying "it's sourced" does not address the policy violations asserted in the nomination. "Relevant" does not appear to have any foundation in policy or guidelines. Otto4711 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, I think "relevant" was in reference to your nom, which asserts that many of the references to AC/DC are not relevant to the band. It would also seem pertinent to WP:AVTRIVIA, since that which is trivial is presumably non-relevant. -- Visviva 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article covers a specific area of knowledge about AC/DC and its influences to culture during the last 30+ years just like the Beatles, Elvis Presley and Beethoven this is notable beyond the genre of Music. All claim of fact are referenced, its even notable to enough for Rolling Stone to recognise AC/DC infleunces in popular culture. Gnangarra 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That similar articles may exist about other acts is not a valid justification for this article. Jimi Hendrix, Aerosmith, The Who and Rush all had an influence on pop culture but articles filled with this sort of stuff were deleted for them. This article does not in any way establish AC/DC's influence on pop culture. It establishes that there have been a few instances of people mentioning AC/DC or dressing up like someone from AC/DC in movies or TV shows. In almost every instance noted, some other band could have been substituted and it would have made absolutely no difference. Otto4711 04:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please dont put words in my mouth or try to refactor what I'm saying, I said "The article covers a specific area of knowledge about AC/DC and its influences to culture during the last 30+ years" I didn't say xxx has an article so this one should, referencing demonstrates Notability together woth Verfiability the sources are reliable the indiscriminate unsourced pieces were removed during the previous AfD, but then you know this as you initiate the second nomination a week after the first AfD closed and have now started a third, I suggest that you go and read the policy WP:POINT and since your demanding further policy considerations also read WP:CIVIL and respect the opinions of others. 06:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking of civil, falsely accusing people of violating POINT or CIVIL just because they disagree with you and expect you to be able to defend your statements is in itself highly uncivil. I respect your right to have your opinion but I also disagree with it and I will continue to challenge it. If you don't like having your opinion challenged then you should probably reconsider participating in these sorts of discussions. Otto4711 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As someone who actually normally opposes "popular culture" articles and sections, the AC/DC "brand", if you will, is widespread and distinctive enough in the 34 years they've been recording to actually have one. Reliable sources do not appear to be a problem. Apart from Jimi, I'd have voted delete on the ones Otto cited. Orderinchaos 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a trivia fork. Lots of other notable subjects have had these type of articles deleted, and we don't need to list every single thing about a band to have an article. Just widdle down the cruft and merge anything needed to the main article. There is no reason for this fork to exist. Biggspowd 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per other "In popular culture" articles that have passed through here recently. If the content had been suitably encyclopaedic, it would have stayed contained in the main AC/DC article. - fchd 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no different than most other popular culture articles. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment None of the references which say "still shot on imdb.com" are a true reference. They are original research. A reference would be to an article discussing how (eg) Jack Black looks like Angus Young when he wears a schoolboy uniform styled outfit. BTW: Abstaining, because WP:ILIKEIT is no reason to !vote Keep.Garrie 00:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep, although there are still some legitimate issues with some of the references, overall this seems like an example of what articles like this should be. -- Visviva 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - this is really not sufficiently encyclopaedic in its own right as an article. Anything relevant in it is already in other articles, or should be moved there by those above concerned enough to become emotional about the topic. Agnetha1234 07:43, 23 June 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.