Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular beat combo (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Seems like there are a few issues here. The first is whether this is a vexatious renomination of an already kept article; it seems like there is no consensus for this idea owing to e.g a deletion review on the last deletion nomination that explicitly allowed for renomination.

The second is whether there is enough coverage of the phrase to establish notability and to defeat WP:DICDEF concerns, and whether the available sourcing is adequate for this or merely a bunch of unrelated things synthesized into an article. Most of the commenters are addressing this question, the headcount is almost evenly split and while most keep arguments do not mention any source, some of them (such as GirthSummit) do point out the existence of potentially valid sources and it's not clear that they have been conclusively refuted. My sense is that there is no consensus due to several uncontested sources and some statements by delete arguments that may or may not refute the keep arguments, as well as disagreement on whether some usages are suitable proof of notability where both sides have raised rational arguments. There are some uncontested concerns that at least part of the article is WP:OR but that does not automatically establish a reason for deletion; sometimes such issues can be resolved solely by editing.

Finally, Uncle G has proposed a rewrite/repurpose of the topic. It seems like it has gained a little support and no explicit opposition, but by my reading just not enough support to classify the rewrite/repurpose as a consensus. Thus I'll play safe and call the conclusion "'no consensus"', but that Uncle G's proposal should be further considered e.g in a talk page discussion or just by bold editing including redirection. And editors may want to address any WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues the article may have, as the concerns about the adequacy of the current content are reasonably supported. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Popular beat combo
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a non-notable term. Most of the references used in the article are examples of it being used (ie that WP:ITEXISTS) but this doesn't make it notable: see WP:EDPN. Some of the references are about the stereotype of British judges being out of touch with the common man, and use the term 'popular beat combo' as an example, but this does not amount to significant coverage of the term itself. WP:NOT etc. It is not Wikipedia's function to record every term or phrase that is used in a humourous context: WP:IINFO. We areonly here to cover topics which meet our notability policy's threshold of having "received significant coverage, directly and in detail, in reliable sources". Please note that the page was nominated for deletion earlier this year but the result of 'keep' was held to be "questionable" given the high number of non-policy-compliant !votes. Amisom (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The renomination is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." It is counterproductive to create multiple AfD pages to try to remove an innocuous page of this sort -- this adds to the clutter rather than reducing it.  As for the supposed case against, it's quite false.  It's clear that the late Marcel Berlins put some effort in researching this and this is well-documented and sourced.  Policies which mandate that we retain this include WP:ATD; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE.  Andrew D. (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The DRV explicitly concluded that a renomination would be appropriate. Also none of the policies you’ve listed have even the slightest relevance here so whose being vexatious? Amisom (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrew D., every time you cry CENSORSHIP over a silly little AfD you make that phrase sound more hollow. Seriously--that's ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As this matter concerns the Beatles, see Blue Meanies. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The policies that I cite are quite relevant and their general point is that we should be constructive rather than destructive. In the first AfD, I suggested that we develop this into a broad topic about being out of touch.  Others are now following a similar train of thought below.  So, this AfD is following the same pattern as the first and, as that was quite recent, we should expect a similar outcome.  Repeating the process is therefore unproductive and it is generating wasteful heat and noise per WP:LIGHTBULB.  That's what makes this discussion vexatious and that's why it would be sensible to speedily terminate it. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CENSOR is totally irrelevant and you know it. WP:NOTPAPER is irrelevant and you know it. You're just being over-dramatic. As for the renomination, I was urged to do so by the DRV. If you disagree,t hat's fine. It's difficult for anyone sensible to classify it as vexatious though. Amisom (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, exactly the same as when you nominated the same article in April. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And when you then took it to DRV. Which is easy to see, because you seem to have done almost no editing since. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How much I edit or don’t edit is my free choice and has no bearing on this. Don’t troll. Amisom (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The DRV explicitly concluded that a renomination would be appropriate. Amisom (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And as nothing has changed about its notability, then re-keeping is equally appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which one of the speedy keep criteria applies? I’ll wait. Amisom (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Nomination by a TBANed user has a nice ring to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not topic banned. Outright lie. Amisom (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a lie; more of a suggestion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Andy Dingley, it might have a nice ring, but you know we can't do that, not like that. I think the AfD is leaning weakly towards keep--you don't need to undermine the nominator here., you are not likely to be topic-banned over one double AfD nomination. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I observe that indicates there to be a topic there, but just as with  Wikipedia editors have built an article cargo-cult style using a line of a joke as a subject name.  This can, I suspect, similarly be renamed and refactored into a proper article without deletion.  Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And as a quick headcount, there are more sources cited for 'beat combo' than 'newspaper riddle'. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's measuring quantity over quality, though, as several of the sources here are just occurrences of the title phrase in running prose. Whereas I tried to pick for newspaper riddle the name that folklorists, who actually study this stuff, use.  I am interested to see that we finally gained neck riddle some years later.  Interestingly, that came up as I was reading sources for this. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But re COMMONNAME, what else would be more readily recognisable? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See below. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage discussing the phrase in detail. The claim it "may be used as an ironic or journalistic synonym" is followed by four references, none of which are secondary sources supporting the statement, but which appear to be given as examples of usage which would be appropriate for a dictionary but not an encyclopedia, WP:NOTDICT.Pontificalibus 12:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking through the article, most statements lack sources. The ones that have sources are dubious at best.  The article seems to be based on WP:Original Research and WP:Synth.  I know deletion is not supposed to be a way to get articles improved, but, likewise, wikipedia is not supposed to end up with a large collection of permastubs.  If there is any actual, reliably sourced information in the article, put it in another article. Rockphed (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What's a "permastub"?  It has doubled in size since the previous AfD.  There are a dozen sources there. "AfD is not for cleanup", and yet for once, that's the effect that first AfD has had.  Which of these "most statements" are you concerned about being unsourced? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By my count there are 2 sources that might provide reliable, independent, and significant coverage of the article topic. Each is used as a source on a single sentence in the second section.  No amount of flowery prose (or bad sources) will make a non-notable subject notable.Rockphed (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to move.  has put forward not one, but 3 articles that cover this topic space.  Some of the sources we have been discussing can be used in all three, some can only be used in one or another.  A significant portion of his proposed articles talk about British judges, but that is largely because the page we are picking apart is decidedly British. Rockphed (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article was only nom back in April. Refs have been improved since then.--Mervyn (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete- This wouldn't be the daftest article we decided to have, but I can't disagree with Pontificalibus and Rockphed's analysis of the sources. I don't really think Wikipedia should be a catalogue of awkward phrasing or slips of the tongue. DRV explicitly allowed renomination, so the existence of a previous AfD is irrelevant. Reyk YO! 14:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per keepers. The article is not a stub; it covers this small subject pretty adequately, though more refs would be nice. I don't see how it can be said that "The article seems to be based on WP:Original Research and WP:Synth." Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , here is an example. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Well, that was very easy to sort! Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That didn't sort anything, so I undid it. A further example is "It may also be used to ridicule legalese, antiquated courtroom practices, and eccentric judges" for which two references are given, both examples of usage but there is no secondary source stating it my be used thus.Pontificalibus 14:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I adjusted the claim and restored it. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, I like what you're doing; if you and my uncle got together y'all could work this out very nicely. I particularly approve of the term "trope". But I think my uncle's criticism still stands, and I also think that more work needs to be done to appease User:Pontificalibus, whose OR/SYNTH concerns are still valid. I do believe that Uncle G's suggestion is the most valid and encyclopedic one: rather than attempt to bolster this particular little incident, it is better to write on the trope. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, an article on Out of touch British judges or similar would be supported by multiple sources discussing the subject in detail (e.g. this one already in the article and this one not yet mentioend here).Pontificalibus 15:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per keepers above. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 14:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rockphed. There is no topic here, just a "dictionary definition" of a beat combo that is popular, with a collection of refs that mention the phrase "popular beat combo" in passing.  There's possibly a topic in "beat combo", but calling one "popular" is not even at all common; compare stats.   Perhaps a Beat music section would be a better place for some of this info.  Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the article?  This is not an article about beat combos and their relative popularity. But I rather suspect that you knew that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I studied the attempt to dress up what was a simple dictionary definition into a topic about a cliche phrase. I think it still fails GNG. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I should have said that the phrase could also be discussed there, not just the sampling of popular beat combos themselves as now on the page I pointed to. And a redirect would be fine. That's what we typically do for minor topics that fail GNG.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you evidently haven't read it. At some time, this was a phrase spun off from beat combo. But that was over fifty years ago, whether it was first done by Justice Cocklecarrot or by Peter Cook. Since then, long after beat combos ceased to be any popular source of music, it has been a three word phrase, used deliberately and humorously because of its cliche. This topic, this article, have nothing to do with music, or even The Beatles. They refer to the 1960s satire boom and its children, possibly (Marcel Berlins remains silent) to an apocryphal judge as well. But not music. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Beat music. This is not a specific kind of band, it is just a combination of three English words: "popular", meaning lots of people know about it, "beat" meaning, well beat music, and "combo" meaning "band or musical group".  The only part of that phrase that has any need for specific article is "beat", and we have one already, which is beat music.  -- Jayron 32 15:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point by a mile here - this is emphatically not an article about music, nor does it pretend to be. It is about a British media trope suggesting ignrorance of music. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I got that. However, citing a small handful of jokes that happen to use those three words in order doesn't make it worth creating an entire article about.  -- Jayron 32 15:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough sources about the phrase itself to make it notable, and the article goes beyond a simple dictionary definition. Redirecting to Beat music wouldn't be appropriate - this article is about the phrase itself, not about the music. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you identify at least one source that discusses the phrase and its usage in detail? A phrase doesn't satisfy WP:N simply through usage.<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 15:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Davies book and the RSS editorial both talk about the phrase itself, rather than just using it. The mention in the Guardian is brief, but it too is about the phrase rather than just using it, and I note that Marcel Berlins claims to have spent an inordinate amount of his journalistic career researching it - assuming that to be true, there are likely more sources that could be found in his writing. I'm content for it to survive on the strength of the current sourcing - it's not promotional, it's not disparaging anyone, basically it's just about notable and it's not hurting anybody. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, [edit] or merge into a spinout list of tropes from Private Eye. I am sorely tempted to point the nominator to the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can only hope you're making some kind of obscure joke, because otherwise telling a newbie editor to fuck off just for nominating a bad article for deletion is completely reprehensible. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 15:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a newbie editor, they have been here since January 2012, and much of their activity is nominating articles for deletion via PROD. You should also check the etymology of popular beat combo, the nationality of the publication in which it first appeared, and the name of its most prominent benefactor. The user's edit history indicates to a very high degree of probability that they are also English (as am I) so is likely to interpret the usage int he English, not the more prudish American, sense. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guarantee that if I said, "Delete, and the article creator should go forth and multiply" I'd be facing a pitchfork mob at ANI. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 08:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. An anecdote mentioned in passing in a handful of sources (even the reliable ones, which is not true for all the cited sources - forums, blog crap) does not meet WP:GNG. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but where are the "forums, blog crap" sources here? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been doing some reading. First, as far as Wikipedia is concerned we can verifiably source this to James Pickles, because there are umpteen obituaries of xem asserting this. If this were all that there were to this, I would suggest a merger there, for being an anecdote about M. Pickles that was so significantly representative of xem that it made it into xyr obituaries ahead of the person whom it turns out really did once scrub things for a living. However, if one does the usual AFD trick of phrase matching with Google Books and does not actually read  one will miss the scholarship by a large distance.  Davies is talking about judicial anecdotes, and makes the point several times over, in a chapter which does not document this one anecdote in depth other than to hold it up as an example of how such things follow a narrative script of an ″out of touch judge″ stereotype, that such anecdotes are often misattributed or indeed non-factual. (If you think that ″stuffy reactionary conservative″ is the British newspaper stereotype of judges, be aware that there are sources out there &mdash; e.g. ISBN 9781841134956 p.51 &mdash; that note how this stereotype changed to quite the opposite in the 1990s, so if your view of this comes from a satirical magazine from the 1960s it's that magazine that is now out of touch. &#9786;  Also, the Wales Online article that Pontificalibus points to is a fairly bad source.  It is fairly reliably sourced that journalists like that more interested in sensationalism than fact invented the ″Is Gazza an opera?″ question and that was not what was actually asked.) The rest of the book that  is in also discusses judicial humour, including judges making jokes.  To counter Pommiepedia bias, it is worth nothing that there is a significant body of Australian work on that subject including (for starters) . I think that we could rename and refactor this into an article on judicial anecdotes, not least because there is an anecdote entry in Gibson's Pocket A–Z of Criminal Justice (albeit a very short one); retaining the link to M. Pickles and using this as an example, which is really what it is, not a subject in its own right. Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt it originates with Pickles, who only became a proper circuit judge in 1976, which I think is some time after the phrase became current. I can well believe that he encouraged the belief that he had started it. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that if someone refactors and renames the article it can be saved from deletion, but I do not think this article can survive in its current form (hence my above delete vote). I agree with your analysis of the current sources.  I like your suggestion and the real question is what to name the resultant article. Do we want to include judges making light in their courtrooms (as in this article that was the first hit on google under "supreme court humor"?  Or do we just want an article about jokes about judges (which a quick google under "jokes about judges" analysis turns up some scholarly papers)?  Rockphed (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See below. Uncle G (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: I haven't been able to find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. There is some coverage that uses this phrase, but very little that discusses it. The sources that do discuss the phrase amount to a series of trivial mentions, and so fall short of the requirement for significant coverage. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Came here from ANI, apparently I said I would !vote delete if this came up at AfD, and I still agree - this violates WP:DICDEF and the references do not support anything beyond the fact the term has been used, along with potential WP:OR explaining how the term has been used. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When did you last actually read WP:DICDEF I wonder? It clearly isn't one of those, and the context is adequately referenced. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with WP:DICDEF, and in no way is this adequately referenced. Admittedly two of the sources I don't have access to (the website is down for one of them) but every single reference I have access to simply uses the phrase without defining why the phrase is important or commenting on the phrase's colloquial usage. Therefore, the entire article has to be WP:OR, since it draws conclusions not adequately supported by any of the source material. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What nonsense! This, for one is clearly talking about the phrase rather than using it. It isn't a monograph, but it doesn't have to be. I doubt if any of the references actually uses the phrase, ie as a straight description of a musical group.  Which do you think do? Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm incredibly surprised you consider that source to "clearly talk about the phrase," considering it appears once in the article, with no other context. Most (if not all, I don't remember) of these articles use "popular beat combo" exactly once, and in passing, without continuing to describe it. In no way is that significant coverage. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I fell to the floor in amazement on reading this (no injuries, don't worry). The whole piece is about judicial ignorance or being out of touch. That is the context. It doesn't need "describing" or grammatical analysis, nor repeating. Anyway, what about Berlins? Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This still doesn't discuss why the phrase itself is notable - it's possible there's an article on British judicial ignorance which would be notable, but the phrase itself still isn't, and that's what I'm reviewing here. The Berlins link is one of the websites I have not been able to access, as it has been down for at least 24 hours, but searching "Popular beat combo" "Marcel Berlins" on two different search comes up with only forums. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there appears to be at least one entire book on the subject, not to mention much other coverage ( also, only a few pieces cited here, saying "it's possible there's an article on British judicial ignorance which would be notable" illustrates rather well your personal attitude to notability. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My "personal attitude towards notability" certainly cannot be established by a theoretical topic I've done no research on. Just drop this plase, we're not even commenting about this particular article anymore and unless some much better sourcing is found you're not going to get me to agree with you. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The term is primarily notable because various humorists, most obviously Private Eye, have used it as a regular catchphrase for over fifty years. There is no need to analyse its origin, it merely exists. And since then, it has been used so much as to become notable, as that catchphrase.
 * I don't know a US equivalent. Maybe "What, me worry?". You might as well ask for sourcing of Saturday Night Live Samurai and question why Belushi is playing a samurai. It doesn't matter: it's just the context, it's the repetition of the performance which makes it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which source discusses it in that context? SportingFlyer  T · C  20:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this just scrapes through notability, per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, namely: "such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry... and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." Whilst one could linkspam the page with examples of this terms in use, there are just enough enough sources like this one to demonstrate that this ironic term is of note and of social significance (and us Brits are rather good at our irony). Being an avid Have I Got News For You watcher (who has heard the term used to mock well-educated Private Eye magazine editor and panellist, Ian Hislop for being culturally_out-of-touch), I didn't think it acceptable to add this source for verification as, sadly, it links to a user-edited site. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything you just said is either wp:or or wp:synth. While I appreciate that this feels like something everyone knows, we can not build an encyclopedia on things "everyone knows." Rockphed (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject passes our notability guidelines... also It is disruptive to keep nominating the article until you get a different result. WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE WP:NOTPAPER. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Renominatiom was explicitly urged by the independent voices at DRV, and you have failed to give any reason as to why it is supposedly a notable subject. Amisom (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows that "no prejudice against renomination" is just a euphemism for "NOTAGAIN! disruption! REEEEEE!" <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 07:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Reyk I hadn't thought about that but you have a point. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we get back to the proper subject of an AFD disussion, now? Do we rename and refactor?  Do we delete?  What sources exist?  How in-depth are they?  What subject(s) do they actually document?  I put forward one suggestion above.  Uncle G (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't rename. What on earth to?  This is a cliche (therein lies the humour), so we ought to use it, not move to something without the catchphrase recognition. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See above. Uncle G (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to criticise User:CAPTAIN RAJU, who does sterling work, but this has wrongly been included in the Music and bands sorting lists, which may have confused some above. The only wikiproject the article has is "popular culture" (though it surely should have UK or England banners, and probably a legal one). Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothng wrong at all with the sorting. Read the first sentence, check the categories, and then see if you can claim it has nothing to do with music. If people are confused it is because there are no sources explaining the topic in detail, so we can't write a proper article for readers who are unfamiliar with any of the context.--<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 21:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But as you have already explained, a cliche is a phrase which has become devoid of meaning. Therefore it has lost any reference to actual beat combos or their music. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If it truly is a cliche and has nothing to do with music, why doesn't the first paragraph of the article explain this rather than state "Popular beat combo as a synonym for "pop group" is a phrase within British culture. It may also be used more specifically to refer to The Beatles, or other purveyors of beat music."? Perhaps it's because there aren't any sources explaining it's supposed actual new non-musical cliched meaning? <strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 07:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that does a great job, adding afds to afd subject lists (have just sent them a kitten of appreciation:)), as someone who also adds them just wanted to say that on reading the article i would have probably done the same. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a very brief demonstration of what I am thinking, presented as I would structure it for my personal Articles For Creation service, although there I would put all of the sources and cross-references in. Drmies is probably enjoying seeing AFC at AFD.  The first is where I would envision refactoring this.  One poor article titled after the tagline of an anecdote is actually hiding three rather more substantive ones if the sources are anything to go by. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

{{divbox|brown|| judicial anecdotes are anecdotes told about judges.

Unlike judge jokes, judicial anecdotes are intended to be taken as true; however, that is often not the case as they frequently are misattributed or misquoted. They are also not necessarily humourous in intent; as often the intent is to exhibit the character of the person about whom the anecdote is told.

One such was widely attributed to James Pickles in his obituaries. Anecdotally, he asked "Who are The Beatles?"; to which a barrister answered "I believe they are a popular beat combo, m'lud." This anecdote demonstrates one facet of such anecdotes, namely that they play into stereotypes. Here, the stereotype is that of a conservative, reactionary, out of touch judge. This stereotype was common in British newspapers in the 1960s and 1970s, albeit that the 1980s and 1990s saw it entirely reversed as a Conservative Party government saw many of its actions thwarted by judicial rulings, prompting the newspapers (those that supported the Conservative Party, that is) to lampoon judges with the opposite stereotype of being excessively liberal and trendy.

It also demonstrates the problems of correct attribution. Marcel Berlins, legal correspondent for The Guardian newspaper, failed in his attempt to track down where, preciseley, this was said, when, and by whom. He twice offered, with no result, a magnum of champagne to anyone who successfully did so. (The later obituaries did not say where and when Justice Pickles wa supposed too have said this, and the accepted view that the anecdote dates from the 1960s pre-dates Pickles' joining the circuit in the 1970s.)

Anecdotes can involve misreporting. Anecdotally, Jeremiah Le Roy Harman, in a case involving Paul Gascoigne who was widely known as ″Gazza″, asked ″Is Gazza an opera?″. This was, however, a construction by journalists looking to sensationalize, Gascoigne's life being a favourite subject of the newspapers of the time. In fact Judge Harmon had actually asked ″Isn't there an operetta called La Gazza Ladra?″.

Given Gascoigne's nickname and his then image of being a ″lad″ this may have been an instance of judicial humour, which has a tendency towards puns and witticisms, falling flat because of its sheer obscurity. Judicial anecdotes also exemplify such things; another such being an anecdote related about A. H. Bodley who, in reponse to a witness, a young lift-boy, describing a mezzanine floor as a ″Mazarin floor″ in testimony, noted that ″It is but a cardinal error.″, an obscure reference to Cardinal Mazarin that the lift-boy and others present were unlikely to have understood.

Publishing collections of such anecdotes has been a regular activity since the 19th century. Two such recent collections are Miscellany at Law &hellip;


 * &hellip; and so on, you can see where this is going.

Reference bibliography



 * &hellip; and some of the ones in the original article for the refactored content.

}}{{divbox|brown|| judicial humour is the use of humour by judges, in court, in judicial opinions and otherwise.

Reference bibliography


}}


 * Thank you! I lacked the creativity to see what to do here. This looks absolutely perfect. My only question is if we want to keep the edit history for popular beat combo? If so, which article should we attach it to? Rockphed (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'd rename it to judicial anecdotes and refactor that there. Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with something along the lines of Uncle G's proposed new article, and a redirect to it from the article's current title - certainly that is preferable to deletion, or to a redirect to an entirely irrelevant article like beat music, which would fail to explain anything about the meaning and history of this well-known (in the UK) phrase. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - and redirect to Beat music. ♟♙ (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever target is chosen, that is definitely the wrong one. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not the kind of article I would wish my wife or servants to see. After all, the subject matter is only a minor expression, comparable to one among the many that very rightly are chucked together within Recurring themes and in-jokes in Private Eye. Redirect it to User:Uncle G/drafts/Judicial anecdote or similar (let be the judge); and later, when Uncle G's ready, the world will be enlightened by such insights as "judicial anecdotes are anecdotes told about judges". -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC) NB I did not say, and have no reason to think, that this rather delightful turn of phrase was either dreamt up or popularized by Private Eye. -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect Agree with the previous response. I've heard of the expression and understand the joke, such as it is, but it is not in wide use. Readers of Private Eye would know of it and my suspicion is that many of those who want to keep the article may be readers of the magazine and think the expression is more significant or worthy of note than it actually is. Regarding the comparison with "wrong kind of snow", I think that one is much more widely understood, but even that is borderline from the point of view of notability and having a lengthy article dedicated to it. Dubmill (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW (which is admittedly very little), I heard and used this phrase before I ever read Private Eye - indeed, before I got involved in this discussion, I didn't know that it was particularly associated with PI, I just thought it was a thing that everybody knew about. Full disclosure: I do now subscribe to PI, but I only started doing that in my thirties, whereas the 'popular beat combo' I sang in during my university days described itself as such in our side-splittingly ironic posters. People seemed to get the joke, but maybe they were all PI readers. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Above: "it has been used so much as to become notable ... it's the repetition of the performance which makes it"; "it is not in wide use"; "It is NOT 'a very common phrase in widespread use in the UK'". No evidence seems to be provided for either its claimed wide use or its claimed rarity. So, is it widely used? I can't provide a quick answer, but I can suggest how widely it was used in Britain from circa 1980 to 1993. The British National Corpus, which covers this period, has no hits, zero, for "popular beat combo". For comparison: "tired and emotional", 12 hits; "since sliced bread", 11; "crocodile tears", 22; "economical with the truth", 16; "mistakes were made", 11; "wrong kind of snow", 3. -- Hoary (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wot, no comment on my comment? It could be claimed that BNC is dated, and that the popularity of "popular beat combo" has leapt up since 1993. I therefore looked in the iWeb corpus, a humongous corpus compiled from either 2017 or 2018 (Davies' own explanations disagree on this), from websites that may well predate this but can be expected to postdate 1993. There's no limitation to British sources, but British sources are included. And so: "popular beat combo" gets 18 hits; "tired and emotional", 148 hits; "since sliced bread", 2407; "crocodile tears", 1032; "economical with the truth", 276; "mistakes were made", 1644; "wrong kind of snow", 21. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no evidence that this phrase has ever had more than the most minor use. In its current state, the article tells us that "May be", "or may be", "may also be" used -- but very rarely is used (and above, I present the numbers to demonstrate this). Not notable. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussions missing the point

 * Comment - am I missing the point here in these discussions? The article is not mainly about pop music or about courtroom exchanges, but about a very common phrase in widespread use in the UK - in the same way that "The wrong type of snow" ("wrong type of...") is often not used to refer to the weather. What needs to be done to get this across clearly? Is it the muddled intro sentence that needs re-writing? --Mervyn (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Wikipedia isn’t a dictionary and the phrase isn’t encyclopedically notable. Amisom (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Having already ivoted, and seeing no reason at all to change my response to this, I thought I'd check for Leaves on the line. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 08:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The content about the possible origin of the phrase shows it is far more involved than a dictionary entry. --Mervyn (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I could write a very invovled article about my dog. It doesn't mean that the article should be kept. The question is whether it meets the GNG, not whether WP:ITSINTERESTING. Amisom (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is NOT "a very common phrase in widespread use in the UK" - that's why there aren't any sources discussing its use in detail, and why the article is confusing. The wrong type of snow specifies multiple sources discussing usage of that phrase from its origin to its cliched use in wider context - however we don't have that here. <strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 11:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The wrong type of snow includes several references to books and articles that deal with "the wrong kind of snow" as a topic, rather than just in passing. While I will admit to having only scratched the surface of the possible sources on popular beat combo, there do not seem to be any that use it as their subject, all simply use it in passing.  That said, does anyone have access to Rules Britannia: the 101 Essential Questions of Britishness Answered, from how to keep a stiff upper lip to who ate all the pies?  If you do, can you check if it has a section on "Popular beat combo"?  Google books doesn't think it does, but it is worth a check. Rockphed (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the claim is DICDEF, let's define accurately. Popular beat combo, n., humorous or ironic. Chiefly British. "The term is regarded as being archaic and overly formal in relation to the subject matter, and is intended to reflect the way in which an old-fashioned or older person would refer to a contemporary pop group." (OED) Drmies (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.