Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grieg's music 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 the rewritten article, which is substantially improved from the one that received recommendations to delete. — TKD::Talk 00:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Grieg's music in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. Listed items have nothing in common past happening to use some of Grieg's music. Tells us nothing about Grieg, the music, the items which included the music or anything else. Oppose merger to any other article that touches on the topic. The list was clearly split off from another article, most likely because those editors realized it was unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, but unfortunately they didn't simply delete it. Otto4711 19:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC) JForget 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabda (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom -- loosely associated topic indeed. DO NOT MERGE, way too indiscriminate of a list. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unreferenced, listcruft, trivia-filled, it has it all.
 * Delete. This article was originally part of the Edvard Grieg article. I split it off to improve the Grieg article. I agree it can be deleted; nothing of really interest here, especially since Griegs music is so famous that it has been used on countless occasions. Karstein 07:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The use of Grieg's music in movies etc., especially as a major theme, is about as important a topic as anything else about his music. Some of the items, such as the second (the film M) even discus the reasons for it. Bring the other entries up to the same standard. The nom clearly says he considers that this information does not belong in WP, and i wonder why. The nom is clearly uninterested in the opinions of anyone who actually knows the usic, for he made no notifications of the AfD. DGG (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Important to who'? Not any third-party, reliable sources. There are literally millions of artists who's work has been included in a soundtrack at one time or another, and without a source that explains why these are significant on a cultural level, it's just a list of times where his music has been played with moving pictures. Consequentially 08:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Bravo to User:Bearian. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say popular culture articles should focus on the work's recognized continuing significance to the art in which it is used. Keepers. Consequentially 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete there is no WP:RSes saying that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Keep Oh gosh, Carlos being fickle? Hardly. User:Bearian asked to reconsider my statement in light of the substantial edits that he has made to the article, which is vastly different than it was when nominated. It has WP:RSes not only about the re-uses and citations which form the vast majority of these "in pop culture" articles, but that there are WP:RSes showing a significance (and notability) to Grieg's music in popular culture. Citations to the New York Times, Metropolitan News Co (publisher of many Southern California newspapers), and University of London. Carlossuarez46 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Important to music lovers and college students doing research.  Get rid of the cruft, get some cites, make it so. Bearian 19:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * O.K., folks, I did it myself. In a very short time, I found over 20 cites.  Some are blogs, some are reviews, some are more substantial.  With a bit more work, this could be a featured article.  Strong keep per WP:HEY. Bearian 20:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And many of them are sourced to the work itself. You cannot use a work to justify its own importance. --Eyrian 20:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An article should not be judged by cherry-picking one or two of 38 sources, most of them very unique from one another. That's like reading that Bush is a cheerleader and subsequently nominating his article for deletion. — xDanielx Talk 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Eyrian, have any of these ever been sufficiently close for you to accept that with editing it could make an acceptable article? (In contrast, I've !voted delete for a good number of the articles nominated when it seemed that it would not be practical to fix them fairly quickly, or there might not be sufficient usable material. ) DGG (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You will both note that I have not said this article should be deleted. --Eyrian 04:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note for the record, and stating the obvious perhaps, the opportunity for improvement of any of these pop culture articles along the lines that User:Bearian has done is always available: it's probably tough work and for many of these articles IMHO improbable to impossible to be more than a citations list which is what has prompted the deletion tide. But the opportunity has been and remains available: before the afd nomination had been placed upon the article, during the afd process, and afterward by simply asking an admin to restore an article to your userspace to be worked upon and resubmitted. As best I recall, none were deleted for BLP or copy vio's userfication is non-controversial and I would certainly do it -even ones where I voiced support for deletion, and no doubt several other admins would as well. Carlossuarez46 00:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - AfD is not cleanup, but for anyone who disagrees Bearian has done a wonderful job improving the article. Regardless, the subject is clearly notable, with popular events around the world and what not dedicated to him. The WP:NOT accusation is just about the most vague and generic argument that appears on the AfD forum. A similar case could be made for just about any other article, pop culture or not. — xDanielx Talk 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep- A very good job, despite some stilted English. Not just an indiscriminate list. Rhinoracer 01:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been radically improved since its nomination and WP:NOT no longer applies.--Father Goose 04:20, 11 August 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.