Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late Show with David Letterman (R.E.M.)

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late Show with David Letterman (R.E.M.)

NOTE - This article has been moved to List of R.E.M. appearances on David Letterman. Torc2 (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

192.138.214.102 (talk) added the AfD template to the article and has given no reason on the article's talk page as to why he/she is considering this article for deletion. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 13:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no reason was given by the nominator who added the AfD template to the article page. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Six vastly seperated appearances on a late night talk show is not that notable, and there are no sources to prove this is notable. The fact that they debuted on television on the show can easily be mentioned at the REM page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so they appeared on a late-night TV show to perform and promote themselves. And...? Delete as almost-sub-trivial. --Calton | Talk 15:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scorpion and Calton. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting, but way beyond trivial - belongs on a fan site or in a book, perhaps, not on WP. Duncan1800 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping track of which band was on what late-night show when just isn't a job for an encyclopedia, especially not in an article all its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - REM's relationship with the Late Show is very notable and important within the band history. This is essentially content that should go in the main REM article, but won't fit and would be stylistically awkward. It should just be tagged with the {{subArticle}} tag and left alone. Torc2 (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any sources to prove that their six appearances over 20 years are notable? There are much more notable group-TV show relationships, like the Beatles and the Ed Sullivan show and yet there is no The Ed Sullivan Show (The Beatles) article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article asserts that the group made their international TV debut on Letterman, which began the relationship. Beyond that, the bulk of this article is covered by WP:NNC. The Beatles/Sullivan connection is flawed WP:OTHERSTUFF logic - the Beatles appeared fewer times and the Sullivan show ran for far less time than Letterman's shows. Torc2 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only thing that is really notable on the page is that the group made their debut on the show and that could easily be mentioned at the main REM article. The rest is just overdetailing about their six performances. I don't see why it needs its own entire article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see why the information should be dumped just because you don't find it interesting. I don't find it overdetailed at all. The information is quite basic, actually; it's just laid out in a way that takes up room to make it easily readable (like information should be laid out). Torc2 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You still haven't found any sources to prove that it is important information worthy of its own article. They just appear to be normal promotional appearances and nothing really notable, other than their debut, occured. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not really looking. That it was their TV debut means it's notable. I also consider the article just to be part of the main R.E.M. article that doesn't fit into the main article, and is separated out due to size and style restrictions. Like any other List of whatever articles, it's not supposed to be in total isolation. Torc2 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So are you saying that an article for the debut television appearance of every single notable band should be made? Bexause you're basic argument seems to be "it's a notable band on a notable show" and you seem to be forgetting that Notability is not inherited. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm saying the TV network debut from this band is notable and that the relationship and information about their subsequent performances is appropriate material for the R.E.M. article, which this is essentially part of, and thus covered by WP:NNC even if you don't agree it's notable. Basically this is no different than any other album article, which are generally broken out only due to style considerations, and mostly inherit notability from their band. What policy are you referring to when you say notability is not inherited? The notion that WP:NOTINHERITED is an absolute rule is a myth.Torc2 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia in the extreme. - fchd (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not trivia. Torc2 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is to me. Any such list that relates to content of this nature has no real meaning in the outside world. So they've played half a dozen times on one particular TV show, what's notable about that? - fchd (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pertinent information should be merged with R.E.M.. — Music Maker 5376 00:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most notable information contained in this article is already included in R.E.M. (a Featured Article, by the way). Everything else is unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2008 (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.