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 "vote" (which AfD is not) appears to be 9-to-5 in favor of deletion, but several opinions on both sides appear to not take this article into account at all. Several just accuse the nominator of WP:POINT violations, and one delete vote says flatly that all such articles should be deleted, without reference to policy. In favor of deletion, users cite NOT#INFO, NOR#DIR, and point out the few sources. The "keep" users state that sources must exist for this article, but it appears there are still no secondary sources on the topic at this time. Because of this, notability is not established, as María points out.

I am userfying this article to User:AndyJones/Boléro in popular culture per request. Cool Hand Luke 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trivia collection; merely lists times that a very popular piece of music has been played. Eyrian 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I may reconsider if a better argument appears, but not before. Digwuren 17:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a trivia collection (WP:FIVE). I think this article is a trivia collection. Therefore, this article does not belong on Wikipedia from my perspective. That's a perfectly cogent argument. You may, of course, dispute whether or not this is trivia. But I feel I'm making a reasonable argument. --Eyrian 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:FIVE is not policy. Please refer to a policy, rather than a possibly inaccurate summary of one, in making your argument. JulesH 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR, for starters. I would also argue that many entries fail notability standards, which I know isn't policy, but as a guideline it is widely used in AFD discussions. María (críticame) 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The five pillars explain what is encyclopedic, constituting an argument under reason 2 of the deletion policy. Also, how is "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" an inaccurate summary? Arguing that the pillars are not policy is just Wikilawyering.--Eyrian 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a collection of indiscriminate information. Every minor reference to Boléro is game in this bloated, trivial list which happens to lack sources, and by "sources" I mean reliable, third party sources. Like 99% of all other ...in popular culture articles, this one is unencyclopedic. All stupendous uses of Boléro may be merged into the main article, but from a quick glance I do not see any that deserve it. María (críticame) 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - more like an overstated disambig page. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think anyone needs a list of every piece of media in which a certain movement is used. That's like me listing every stadium in which "We Will Rock You" has been played. -- Kicking222 22:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing the test of notability. I'll reconsider if someone can tell me how the mention of a Bolero in anything and everything is notable. CaveatLector^Talk 22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathmo did not carefully think out reasons for keeping or present a good case for keeping. Crazysuit 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. Few of these examples are even notable for their connection with Bolero. Crazysuit 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOT#DIR as with so many of these terrible "this one time in this one TV show they played this song" lists. Otto4711 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOT#DIR Harlowraman 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An example of influencing popular culture 70 years after one's death. Bolero is one of the few compositions that meets this standard. Mandsford 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as cites to its cultural importance could be found with a bit of effort. I know I must assume good faith, but the nominator appears to be making a point about lists in general rather than sticking with the facts about this one. This article has two cites, and thus is not technically unreferenced. (There goes that damn lawyer again.) I agree it needs a slimfast diet. Bearian 19:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable in pop culture. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:55, 6 August 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.