Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular beat combo

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 May 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popular beat combo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable term, not subject to significant coverage in any of the listed sources. Much of the article is original research. Amisom (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep We have broadsheet coverage in the Guardian and the Telegraph. We had a live use of it in the BBC (but you keep removing that citation). It's rife in Private Eye, and the fact that such uses aren't specifically cited as yet is a need to add citations (and they're widespread in the Eye), not to delete the whole article. You keep claiming "Much of the article is original research.", but haven't stated what.
I can understand why non-UK editors might be unfamiliar with this term because it is a local joke and very likely unknown outside the UK, but that's no reason either. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What "broadsheet coverage"? None of it is about the term. None of it discusses the term directly and in detail. There are examples of the term being used by the media, but that just goes to prove that it exists, not that it's notable. See also WP:NOT#DICT. Amisom (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a topic here but it needs work to generalise it, per WP:BROAD. For example, I have a friend who was never seen Star Wars and so doesn't know much about it while, today, I heard an interview with a young woman who didn't know about The (other) Avengers. The general concept might be called being out of touch but notice that this currently directs to a track that I have never heard of. Commonplace concepts like this should be properly covered by the world's greatest encyclopedia. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They shoudl only be covered if they're notable... Amisom (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Call it an idiom, a meme, a trope... it is the job of an encyclopedia to record and explain it. --Mervyn (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. WP:IINFO and WP:N. Really basic stuff here. Amisom (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG seems established here Laosilika (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laosilika: Which sources contain "significant coverage" of the term? As it stands your vote is classsic WP:ITSNOTABLE. Amisom (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable phrase - the Derivation section has an uncited origin in a 1960s courtroom and there is a seemingly unrelated reference to Lady Chatterley's Lover - and the lead contains a link to a disambiguation page - but content aside, this topic is definitely trivial and non-notable - Epinoia (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've known the term for at least 50 years, but didn't know until today that the origin is probably an urban legend. That is useful and encyclopaedic information, well supported by the sources. The comparison with the Lady Chatterley trial is in one of the sources. Links to DAB pages are no reason to delete (if it were, I could nominate 4,806 articles, which is today's count). I cannot see any WP:OR This nomination strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Narky Blert (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Which if the sources listed in the article contain significant coverage of the term? Ie which of them explore the term "directly and in detail"? Ready when you are. Amisom (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2019 (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.