Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC/DC 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 08:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AC/DC in popular culture
Delete - a form of this article was put up for deletion recently with a result of no consensus. However, several recent similar AFDs lead me to renominate it. The article is an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every reference to or mention of AC/DC, one of its songs, one of its members or something that sounds similar to one of those things, without regard to or explanation of the significance of the mention in either the source material or the real world. Note for precedent Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Jimi Hendrix in popular culture. Otto4711 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into AC/DC. It is well cited and somewhat relevant, but it does not need its own article. Why oh why do people think "... in popular culture" deserves its own independent article. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into AC/DC . Unlike many of the other "in popular culture" articles, this is an excellently-sourced article.  A merge is somewhat problematic given the length of the AC/DC article, so if it is conducted, it should be somewhat selective.  Given the qualitative difference between this and the other cited "precedent" lists, I think keeping is appropriate here.  -- Black Falcon 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is not the issue here. I agree that the article is sourced, which is why "unsourced" was not offered as a reason for deletion. The problem is that no matter how well-sourced the indiscriminate list is, it's still indiscriminate. The items listed tell us nothing about AC/DC or the things from which the thing is drawn or the real world. How does knowing that "Snowballed" was heard from Molly Ringwald's character's brother's room in "Sixteen Candles" tell us about her brother or "Sixteen Candles" or the band? What insight into AC/DC, the character or the film does knowing that "Are You Ready" was playing in the background of Chris's nipple-piercing scene in "Rock Star" offer? What does knowing that Angus Young is on top of the red building on the right, behind the dogs pouring brown matter, on the cover of "Dookie" tell us about Young, AC/DC, Green Day or "Dookie"? This stuff is pointless trivia that doesn't belong in its own article or in the AC/DC article. Otto4711 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in part. A number of the entries on the article are "trivia" and can be removed.  However, it is not trivial that a character on a very popular TV show always wears an AC/DC t-shirt (assuming it's true).  It is also not trivial that AC/DC's album Who Made Who is the soundtrack for the film Maximum Overdrive.  So, what does all of that make this article?  Essentially a poor- or medium-quality list that can serve as the basis for a more encyclopedic article that discusses the influence of AC/DC on popular culture (yes, I realize they are part of pop culture, but I'm referring to that part of pop culture which they haven't directly produced).  As for your main point, this article is not indiscriminate.  Firstly, it meets none of the criteria on WP:NOT.  If we were to take the more general meaning of the word (outside of WP guidelines), it still has a clear, discriminating criterion: the influence of AC/DC on popular culture.  If this list was unsourced or in significantly worse shape, I would probably have agreed with you.  However, it is not, and as you well know, most WP articles start out in poor shape and improve over time.  -- Black Falcon 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, if I had one birthday wish, it would be that everyone who says that an article can't be an indiscriminate collection of information because it doesn't fit exactly one of the eight things mentioned there would understand that the section is not limited to just those eight things. I do not mean to take out my frustration on you but come on. None of those eight things would specifically ban List of blue things but is there any question that such a list would be indiscriminate? Would anyone seriously try to defend it by pointing to WP:NOT and say "list of blue things isn't mentioned there"?
 * And I have to disagree with you that a character always wearing an AC/DC shirt is in fact trivial, especially since it's an animated show and characters in cartoons frequently wear the same clothes all the time. It's like saying that List of orange ascots in popular culture is notable because Fred from Scooby-Doo always wears one. And the soundtrack information already exists as its own article, which is linked to the AC/DC article. Otto4711 04:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But because Fred wears an orange ascot, doesn't mean that orange ascots have an influence over Scooby-doo or any other animated show. But the fact that Butt-head always wears an AC/DC t-shirt is indeed notable in that it shows how AC/DC has been used to denote anti-social characters in popular culture. I agree that the article itself needs to state why everything that is listed there is notable, but this is something which can be done in time. Deleting it is far too drastic. ĤĶ51→Łalk 13:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nothing wrong with this article that can't be fixed as an internal content issue, no reason to delete it outright. -- Stbalbach 04:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Stbalbach. AntiVan 05:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Stbalbach. And like I said in the previous deletion nom - while the potential for inclusionary criteria may be limitless, it does not necessarily mean information is collected on the article indiscriminately. One-off live performances, for example, are deleted, as are other non-notable and unsourced references to the band. And if we're going to delete this, all the articles on Category:Representations of people in popular culture should be deleted, as well as Pink Floyd trivia, which has been nominated and kept. I'll admit, there is room for improvement in the article and I'm willing to work on these if you point them out, but there's no need to delete the article outright. ĤĶ51→Łalk 13:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And my other birthday wish would be for people to stop saying "If X is deleted then Y will have to be deleted too" because that's just flat out not true. Every article stands or falls on its own. Otto4711 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to be a little more civil my friend. Yes, it is true. The information contained in Pink Floyd trivia is the same sort of information contained in AC/DC in popular culture article. And as a matter of fact, this article is less discriminate and better referenced. So yes, if this article is deleted, then there is nothing to stop the Pink Floyd trivia article being deleted. ĤĶ51→Łalk 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to stop throwing out false accusations about incivility, my friend. And if the Pink Floyd trivia article is worse than this one then maybe it should be deleted. That still doesn't make "if this article goes then that one will go too" a valid argument. Otto4711 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not a false accusation; I take offense to people using condescending tones at me, but hey, that's a discussion which doesn't belong here. My point was that it was nominated and kept and that perhaps you should review the reasons why it was kept. It makes perfect sense to say that if one article about a band in popular culture goes, then that means perhaps another should go; but we both clearly disagree on that. ĤĶ51→Łalk 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasons for keeping the PF trivia article look to me to range from "it's interesting" (which is not a valid criterion for inclusion) to "if it's not here it'll get stuck in the main Pink Floyd article" which I reject wholeheartedly as a reason for keeping. Garbage information does not belong on Wikipedia. All sorts of "interesting" things get deleted every day because they do not meet Wikipedia standards. If the information is garbage on its own and it's garbage in the main article, then the information should be removed. Otto4711 17:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was more referring to the users stating it should perhaps be trimmed a bit; I think this comment should be the case here. I'm certain that if we remove the "trivial" details from the article, we could make the article into a proper discussion of AC/DC's influence on popular culture. A delete is far too drastic, there is room for improvement. ĤĶ51→Łalk 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but see, just that an AC/DC item appears in some other medium is not enough. There must also be reliable third-party sources which explain the significance of the reference either within the medium from which it's drawn or the real world. It's not enough to have a source that says "X appeared in Y." There must also be a source which explains why X appearing in Y matters. Otto4711 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that, with work, this can eventually be done. The use of AC/DC to denote anti-social characters (Butt-head, Earl Hickey, etc.) is a start. ĤĶ51→Łalk 18:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is your source that Mike Judge used the AC/DC logo to denote that Butt-Head is anti-social, as opposed to, say, the AC/DC logo being easy to draw in the cartoon's crude animation style? What source indicates that Earl Hickey regrets going to an AC/DC concert instead of taking his sons to an amusement park indicates that this marks him as an anti-social character, and what source indicates that the choice of AC/DC instead of, for example, Slayer or Megadeth or Twisted Sister, was deliberate on the part of the creator of the character as opposed to the first heavy metal band that came to mind while writing the script? Otto4711 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Finding sources for everything will take time. But these sources +, whilst not comprehensive, do show that Butt-head is dressed in a heavy metal t-shirt as a sign of a teenage metal-head stereotype. However, like I said, finding more reliable sources is going to take time. ĤĶ51→Łalk 18:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first source, MTV's website, only says that they wear "heavy metal t-shirts." It does not offer any analysis as to why the wearing of the t-shirts is significant, does not discuss "teenage metal-head stereotypes" and does not mention AC/DC by name. Your second source suffers from the same lack of substantive information and has the additional problem of being IMDB, which because it accepts contributions from anyone and does not engage in fact-checking, is not a reliable source. Otto4711 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, finding more reliable and comprehensive sources is going to take time and I'm willing to work on it. I just find your deletion nomination much too drastic considering there is room for improvement. ĤĶ51→Łalk 19:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not because of, but for the same reason as the other articles. Ckessler 07:16, 28 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.