Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Beyoncé


 * 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 delete. The "delete" !votes have, by the by, the stronger policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Beyoncé

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Beyoncé is one of the most acclaimed musicians of her generation, but there's not enough content for a standalone article of her "cultural impact" (at least for now), unlike Cultural impact of the Beatles, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, or Cultural impact of Madonna. Commentary of her influence on music can be easily covered on List of artists influenced by Beyoncé and Beyoncé. Most of the content on this page (race, feminism, academic study) is also a WP:UNDUE of Lemonade, which should be included on that album's article. Bluesatellite (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete – Massive portions of this article have been plagiarized directly from Beyoncé (album) and Lemonade (Beyoncé album) (the latter of which, this article's creator, was involved in an edit war over after creating this article). In fact, I'm struggling to find any content within this article that hasn't been ripped wholesale from another article. Even if this weren't the case, I would still have voted Merge, as other articles such as the ones listed above have clearly proven themselves more than capable of documenting the cultural impact of Beyoncé's work compared to this nightmarish Frankenstein of plagiarism. TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  18:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking. It's not plagiarism to copy parts of other Wikipedia articles as it doesn't qualify as or purport to be original work. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking the nitpick: Unless otherwise noted, content submitted to Wikipedia does both qualify as and purport to be original work which is then licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. This is why, for example, I can choose to release my work into the public domain. In the case of this article's prose, neither the original articles nor their authors are given credit anywhere in the article, the edit summaries, or the talk page. As mentioned before, unless otherwise stated, Wikipedia's content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, therefore not only making it plagiarism, but actually copyright infringement (albeit easily resolved copyright infringement) of those authors' work as well.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  20:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Copying within Wikipedia does indeed say it must be attributed. Not sure if I always followed this the fortunately rare times I did copy text. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, and move some info to Beyoncé, if it should be moved at all (the section is already quite large, imo). AdoTang (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete – Almost all of the material is taken from Impact/Legacy sections of other Beyonce-related articles. However, I would support keeping the article if StatsFreak and/or other editors plan to expand it beyond that copied material Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – Agree with Bettydaisies. It cannot be said that there is not enough material for an article; there is enough material but it hasn't all been added to the article, so I support keeping the article as editors are planning to expand it. I'm happy to help with it as well. Bgkc4444 (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd be up to help to expand the article beyond the existing attributed content. As previously pointed out, bloating the already lengthy "Legacy" section on her own page might be detrimental to the biography.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment –, literally this entire article is copied wholesale from other articles. There is simply nothing here that other articles don't do better (well, technically the exact same). Lemonade (Beyoncé album) and Beyoncé (album) are prime examples of this because, again, that's where most of this information was lazily copy-pasted from. I furthermore don't understand how the 'Legacy' section in her biography is considered "lengthy" when compared to any other section there; if anything, it's far shorter than the vast majority of sections in that article. Moreover, you argue that deleting this article would "bloat" Beyoncé#Legacy, but literally nothing in the article 'Cultural impact of Beyoncé' is original material except for one relatively insubstantial edit by Nguyen0409; nothing would need to be migrated out to other articles, as it already exists there. By deleting this article, nothing would change in any other Beyoncé-related article, full stop. If you don't believe me that nothing here isn't already in just a handful of other articles (give or take three of them), copy-paste any sentence into Wikipedia's search bar, and it'll return this and one other article. Understand, Bettydaisies, , and , that this entire article is a redundant fork and would need to be rewritten entirely, not just "expanded" to fill in some gaps. Even if that were done, however, it would likely end up being an inferior version of the legacy sections in Good Articles that we already have. Nothing that anybody wants to add here couldn't realistically go in another Beyoncé article such as Beyoncé#Legacy (which isn't "lengthy" by any means), Lemonade (Beyoncé album)#Impact_and_legacy, and Beyoncé (album)#Legacy, because that's where this material already exists. Not to mention that the material there is much better-curated as well. As an example, Beyoncé (album) and Beyoncé are both Good Articles. Meanwhile, this one has yet to even be given any categories besides "Beyoncé" (and even that was only done by , who happened to be passing by, to make it not ), assessed by anybody, or even have the relevant WikiProjects attached to it. Letting such an obvious redundant fork like this remain and inevitably decay into an inferior version of those other articles will only harm the project.  TheTechnician27   (Talk page)  14:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As previously stated, I'd be willing to help rewrite the article because I believe that there is enough substantial sources and material to do so.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment –, I understand where you're coming from, however I still disagree. Yes, the article as it stands is unsatisfactory, but editors are planning on working on it. It is unfair to say that "Nothing that anybody wants to add here couldn't realistically go in another Beyoncé article" since you cannot know what I and other editors aim to add to the article. I personally aim to add material in the same vein as the other "cultural impact of..." articles that Bluesatellite brought above, which go into detail about the various manifestations of the respective artists' cultural impact. There's plenty of reliable sources which can be used for this, and this topic can certainly be made into an encyclopedic, full-length article. I also don't believe it is just to say that the article should be deleted because StatsFreak didn't add categories and it hasn't received much attention. Bgkc4444 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You state: However, this is not at all representative of my broader point, which is that not only is this article wholly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which would need to be rewritten essentially from scratch to actually make itself not categorically redundant to existing material (and to make it so 50% of this slapdash colossus of copyvio isn't just about the album Lemonade), but as an exacerbating factor, it's a carbon copy of articles which are clearly well-maintained (Good Articles) and widely watched, as opposed to this one which, over the course of six months to the date, hasn't received even the most shallow level of basic editorial oversight that would take literal minutes to perform. The two most liable outcomes for this article were we to keep it is that it languishes in complete redundancy for years, or it deteriorates into an inferior version of what it was originally copy-pasted from because of the lack of oversight. If there's a future where this becomes a decent article on its own merits, it's one where it's WP:TNTd and created anew as a WP:RELAR by someone who's willing to actually put in effort to do so – provided the material they create can't reasonably fit into an existing article (as much of her cultural impact already has). For example, the article "Cultural impact of The Colbert Report" has shown itself more than capable of differentiating itself from other Colbert-related Wikipedia content, while using the content from The Colbert Report as a jumping-off point for its lead section.  TheTechnician27   (Talk page)  22:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , to clarify, is your argument that (a) the article should be deleted because currently the material in it is unsatisfactory, or (b) the article should be deleted because there isn't enough material on this topic to write an article as opposed to the other "Cultural impact of..." articles ("there's not enough content for a standalone article of her "cultural impact"" in the words of the nomination, or your suggestions that "much of her cultural impact" is already in other articles)? If (a), then no-one has denied that the article is unsatisfactory, but we have editors here who have explicitly said that they will help expand the article, so one can't say that it should be deleted for that reason. If (b), then that is demonstrably false. As Andrew indicated below, there are many books, academic papers and articles that provide widespread coverage of this topic. The nomination's claim that Beyonce's cultural impact can "easily" be covered in existing articles is false, and if one was to make the current legacy section of Beyonce's main article actually encyclopedic (which it is currently far from) it would be much too long. That is why a separate article is necessary, just like it is for Elvis, Madonna and Michael Jackson. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – I agree with keeping the article with the condition of expanding it, adding important information that it severely lacks. Jimoincolor (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete (and redirect title to the main art.) — At least by now, keeping the article requires attention and a lot of time to verify quality of sources among many other things which could lead to create WP:FANCRUFT. In addition, WP:CONTENTFORK is the most important (and worried) point here and that's technically a problem with the whole text of this entry. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete (or redirect to Beyonce)--this is undue and can be reasonably incorporated into the Beyonce article without straying into excessive details. I even think "Cultural impact of [artist]" articles should not exist in the first place. HĐ (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment –, Why, really? So you don't want some big icons to be acknowledged more widely by their impact on others? Sometimes, articles about cultural impact of an artist is necessary. Just look at Madonna, Michael Jackson, the Beatles,... because if their impact is so immense that the main article cannot contain everything, it's important to make a separate article. We also have articles like "List of artists influenced by (an artist)" if that artist influences more than 100 artists and even non-celebrities that we cannot include all of them in the main articles of those artists (for example, Taylor Swift, Mariah Carey, Madonna,...) so these types of articles sometimes still important. Why do we have to oppose all of them? ADTN1210 (talk) 09:38 April 5 2021 (UTC)
 * You state: . However, the contradiction in your point should be fairly obvious: as every single word of this article – bar maybe a dozen – was ripped straight from three(?) articles, two of which have been reviewed as Good Articles, this information is not "so immense that the article cannot contain" the relevant material. To the contrary, those articles do an excellent job of this, and this is clearly not a case of WP:SPINOFF.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  21:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleteper WP:UNDUE and TheTechnician27 DMT biscuit (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207 ( talk - Contribs ) 01:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I concur with all the Delete arguments above, as well as the nominator. D🐰ggy54321 (the Easter bunny has been summoned...) 03:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, perhaps merging small parts of the content into other articles if needed - however, if most of the content has been copied from other articles in the "Beyonce-sphere" it's unlikely this will be necessary. ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 12:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The claim of the nomination that there's not much to say is false. Here's a stack of books and papers about the topic.  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom, WP:UNDUE of Lemonade, should be cutted and merged into Beyoncé Legacy CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the information used in the article is redundant. The important information can be added in the 'Legacy' section on her bio page. — Tom (T2ME) 09:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – The article is currently under development, and since the discussion above, I have added and removed a lot of material to address the concerns that were raised. It is still a work-in-progress (as any article is), but I encourage any past contributor to this discussion who voted to delete the article, or any future contributor, to review the article again, as it has changed significantly since the nomination. Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article has now been expanded beyond the content copied from Good articles, and will continue to be developed, so that concern no longer applies. I disagree with the nominator's and some "delete" voters' assertions that Beyoncé's cultural impact is insignificant compared to Elvis or Madonna's and so there wouldn't be enough material to fill an article or such an article should never be made. As Andrew said, there is a large amount of reliable sources in this area, and the content in the under-development article already would not fit into Beyoncé's "Legacy" section. As Bgkc4444 said, in order for coverage of Beyoncé's cultural impact to be encyclopedic, it would definitely need this full article. Timeheist (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per rationale provided in other delete !votes. Riteboke (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: None of the reasons given for the article to be deleted apply anymore since it has been changed so that there is no longer any violation of UNDUE or COPYVIO, and it is clear that there is enough content for a standalone article of her cultural impact. Beyhiveboys (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. For reasons stated above. I don't see any reason for it to be deleted because the problems with the article have been solved since. Rhual Andrew (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC) — Rhual Andrew (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for creative essays. Save it for your Culture/Media/Pop Music 101 class. KidAd  •  SPEAK  18:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this page isn't a "creative essay" it's a page to celebrate and congratulate a black woman who has and continues to influence everyone in her artistic view of the world and none of the reasons of deleting still apply since there is no longer violation of UNDUE or COPYVIO Diol250 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC) — Diol250 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia is not the place to celebrate and congratulate a black woman who has and continues to influence everyone in her artistic view of the world. If you want to do that, start a blog or write a tweet. KidAd  •  SPEAK  21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But the person who put this page up for deletion gave the reason that wikipedia IS the place to do that for Madonna, the beatles and Elvis, but not Beyoncé because "there's not enough content for a standalone article of her "cultural impact"" and the content can "easily" be covered in other pages, but that is not true especially as the page has been almost rewritten into a much larger article since he made those comments Diol250 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As rightfully noted, Wikipedia's mainspace is not the place to celebrate or congratulate anybody for anything. Using it as such would fall both under WP:FORUM and WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not the place to do that for Madonna, the Beatles, or Elvis either, and no such similar article is used to that end. They exist solely because it was decided that reliable coverage of their impact on culture was too broad and extensive to be encompassed within other articles. That is unless, of course, you would contend that the article Adolf Hitler in popular culture is Wikipedia's way of "celebrating and congratulating an Austrian man who has and continues to influence everyone in his National Socialist view of the world".  TheTechnician27   (Talk page)  03:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Very true. I agree with the nomination, except for the line starting with unlike and ending with Madonna. This page is an WP:UNDUE WP:FANCRUFT that would be better suited for a pop culture or critical media class, but WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments – both for and against – are not useful for evaluating page notability. KidAd  •  SPEAK  04:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be useful for me if you could clarify how the article violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT instead of just quoting the policies/essays. Regarding undue weight, I'm not sure what points of view the article could be disproportionately presenting. Regarding fancruft, I think it's clear that the article isn't pertinent only to fans of the subject because there is extensive and significant treatment of this topic in reliable independent sources, indicating that it is notable and that it would "attract or pique the interest of readers outside of the small population of enthusiastic fans of the topic". TheTechnician27's main arguments was that the article had been neglected and (as also asserted by the nominator) they believe that Beyoncé's cultural impact is insignificant compared to Elvis or Madonna's (or it isn't as significant yet). The other delete arguments were that the creator of the article was in an edit war on a different but related article two years ago, it would take time to improve and it could lead to policy violations. All of these arguments should be avoided in an AfD. I feel that some people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and trying to get the article deleted for easily surmountable problems, especially since voters gave copyvio, lack of content and undue weight for Lemonade as reasons for deletion but those problems were easily surmountable and have been solved. The article has essentially been rewritten since the nomination so that delete voters' concerns have been taken into account and used to improve the article, and the article will continue to be dramatically improved, so I believe that the legitimate concerns of the delete voters no longer apply. I sincerely hope we can reach a consensus on this and develop the article into one that everyone can agree should be kept. Bgkc4444 (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion has been refactored. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 03:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

After post-comments/expansion: True, since early opposite arguments the article has been substantial improved which is appreciated for her literature. "But" at least for me what I understand also applies how a main article has been written to justify the creation of a separate content like this. Largely attached with this sub-article, her biography needs a major clean up in which many of new content added here, could be distributed to the main space, singles or albums without having by now this (see counter-justification below). That's could be possible, of course, with trimming excessive unnecesary details in "public image" and subsequent sections. I curiously recommended last year to re-verify in her main article the problems of overly detailed sections but I was overlooked by then active members (I later noticed that this concern was pointed out in the past before me by other users). While this could be a point to expand a separate article, there is additional points giving me more questions than answer. Let's review a couple of them:


 * 1) Concerns from her main article: Details such as being part of celebrity lists like her case: "100 Sexiest Artists list" by VH1 or "Hottest Female Singer of All Time" by Complex etc are really unnecesary (I think its reduce the quality of an entry). The mention of wax figures when are common for a celebrity like her, would deserve a mention unless there is a record for "having the most wax figures" or something better like the summary of an academic/critic. Unnecessary obscure details in "Achievements" section related to her awards for examples, even if she has "the most nominations", was "the first recipient" or "most awarded" are excessive. Why? of course, her records in major ceremonies such as the Grammy or MTV deserves a mention and give a general print for those who don't know her career as a fan, but if we have her "List of awards" which is the main space for I don't see what's the point keep adding more examples. The same feelings came from decennial mentions from publication such as Billboard when they compil all-time lists. "Decade" lists could be sumarized along with her discography or distributed with an era in the rest of her body article for example since list of lists are hard to read.


 * 2) Concerns from her main article: Philantrophy section could be fine if she led a charity organization e,g, givin a couple of prose and mainly if there is not a separete article for that. But immediate help for some catastrophes are obscure as WP:Recentism. Many super-stars have been involved in humanitary causes since 20th century, and can we image a mention of each decade of those who still active? Literature in this context for celebrities such as Angelina Jolie I guess could apply in a good portion of her BLP or those with historical causes like AID pandemic rather than obscure events. The same goes to activism. Legacy section in a general sense, have parts from her singles/albums such as the exhibition of "Legends of Rock" discussing her "Single Ladies" outfit. A celebrity like Beyoncé have been a subject of auctions/exhibitions and I'm not sure what's the point having this, at least in a BLP. I know, we've lines that are part of her own literature (reviews that are compared with the perspective of Carey, Houson or Dion with their voices or now Swift with her "songwriter skills"). That's applies with descriptions such as "Bootylicious" or being part of several Forbes/Time lists that at the same time could be summarized instead give a great treatment of those lists. But in a general sense, many of those sections looks like a fanzine.


 * 3.1) KidAd pointed out the nature of an article like this. For me, we have good points and half-truths. In addition that her main biography looks like a fanzine discussing and celebrating how sexy/hot, generous she has been etc, keep in mind comments even among academic/intellectual responses are largely part of the cultural studies. Cultural studies has been the subject of criticism among even academics, mainly American cultural studies, which is a bit different of the British cultural studies. Of course, intellectual responses are more appreciated than other reviews such as alternative journalism/gossip comments. The criticism on "popular culture" topics could apply to articles such as "Public image of (Barack Obama, Putin etc)" that all looks like a celebrity-style articles and largely apply for a couple of years alone in the perspective of Zeitgeist. Ancient practices were also part of then "popular culture" of that time, religious treatments could be viewed exaggerated to many non-christian/religious readers ("the divinity" etc), celebrating "historic" figures ("the most" etc) and we can continue. All are "comments" of an author/a group of authors and subject of being "subjective" and many examples doesn't universal apply either in text books/liberal arts education worldwide. At least, a quote attribution helps, I guess even for a "celebrity".


 * 3.2) Related with the concern of both KidAd or TheTechnician27 of the nature of an article like this and per nominator, I agree that there is a bit of recentism for having a whole entry. Beyoncé is approching a solo career of 20-year (2 decades), or almost half-century overall with her group. For a pop star, that's a long-time career. Is like seeing in timelapse Michael Jackson- transition as a solo-performer in 1983 and then back in 2001/2003. But in her case, mostly came from sources in the 2010s despite she has relevance works such as "Single Ladies" in the late-2000s. Social/cultural comments are subject of changes and like in other areas such as psychology giving dates/quote attributions are a must or appreciated. It's not chronocentrism and I'm from Gaga or Beyonce generation, but the transition of past artists with same entries such as the Beatles, Presley or Madonna been favored with the transition of several academics trends/waves, music concepts for both centuries. And in their time, a career of 20-year or more was viewed as triumph in any terms. Times of course, changes, but in their cases restrospectively intellectual comments are common, and no matters the decade (so "digital era" applies). That's culturally/socially is a key factor and more than 90% sure Beyoncé fails. I also think not all is "celebratory", because a "contradictory perspective" always apply even for a perspective of our policies of WP:NPOV and keeping the tone.

Arguments to avoid such as WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:ITSTOONEW have had less concern IHMO than a serious matters such as WP:CFORK in which nominator was right. An article is supposed to be for any kind of readers and not for a selected group. And a whole entry for a subseptible topic (or less obvios topic) is not a minor deal. Then, expansion have been made, ofc, but there is more questions than answers for having a whole entry in her case. Many points can be applied to a large list of GA/FA articles, but with the tendency of her contribuitors with arguments like since "X" or "Y" artist have this article, why Beyoncé not? is the point here. Her main article largely discuss how sexy/hot she has been, "innovator" or with addition of every power list etc. Maybe, that's the key factor here: clean up her main article, distribuiting relevant info instead a new entry. Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the public image and philanthropy sections of the Beyoncé article have to do with this article. Thinking Beyoncé isn't special in her public image and philanthropy is your pregorative and you can start a separate discussion on those topics on the Beyoncé talk page if you want, but I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion. Similarly, it's your prerogative to believe that Beyoncé actually doesn't have a notable impact as well as that this is just recency bias, and it's your pregorative to believe that "cultural studies" isn't a serious topic, but we need to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policy here. An editor personally believing that Beyoncé doesn't have enough cultural impact for an article or that Beyoncé's cultural impact is too new or that reliable sources shouldn't be used aren't good reasons to delete the article. As WP:AADD says, "Notability is not established by how long a thing has existed, or how far back in time a tradition may go, or how venerable the people are who are involved in it, or how yellowed the pages that once mentioned it. Neither can notability be denied based on the subject's newness, inexperience, or youth. The criteria for notability include evidence of the non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable verifiable independent secondary sources. Assertions based on age or evidence of age are, by themselves, as meaningless as those based on personal knowledge or on dislike of the subject matter." In this case, there is non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable verifiable independent secondary sources, and therefore the article should be kept. Let me know if I have not responded to a relevant argument as it was quite a long piece of text and I may have missed a point. Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I must have looked at this article 18 times. I explain. Any article that examines the cultural or ethnographic effect of a single person on a particular culture and in a particular environment, needs to be an academic article, that examines the assertions in the detail and provide them with academic sources. So the whole article is WP:NPOV. Let's examine a couple of single instances.


 * Beyoncé "is almost singlehandedly keeping the art of the music video alive", according to Daniel Kreps of Rolling Stone. How is it provable by a staff writer at Rolling Stone magazine? It is entirely subjective. Also, almost all the references are American sources. Did she tour? What about the dynamic video culture in South Korea. There are reams of these assertions. Here is another one, Beyoncé is widely credited with the invention of the surprise album. Apart from being untrue, it like it's inside its own bubble, that only came into existence in the '90s. It is junk and completely unbalanced. It doesn't recognize the cognizance of other culture, is unbalanced, lots of it is untrue, and probably subjective. Here is another statement:Beyoncé is credited that is repeated several times in the article. The reference says, in a decent paper by the way,  He and Beyonce were later credited with helping to mobilise the black vote in the election of the first African-American president.  The way to measure and examine how people are swayed by the pop-cultural icons is is detailed, ultra-complex and intricate. All sorts of factors come into play and very very rarely does ut involve cultural icons telling them to do. Almost always, it is the basics, health, a roof over your head and taxes. So to say that in an encyclopedia which represents the truth, for a one-line sentence is decent paper, to build a section,  is beyond a joke. It is meaningless and subjective and it needs to be deleted.     scope_creep Talk  18:01, 29 April 2021 (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.