Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubstep ballet

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, as most of the "keep" arguments actually acknowledge the lack of sourcing available. Maybe someday we'll have enough reliable source material to justify an article on this, but no one has demonstrated that we do at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubstep ballet[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article is completely unsourced, not notable, and is full of original research. Google search yields many hits; however, none seem to be from reliable sources. Most come from Youtube or tumbler. Google news search yields little. Google scholar has nothing relevant. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and Google results reveal minimal non-reliable coverage and maximal articles with the words "dubstep" and "ballet," those articles themselves having nothing apparent to do with the topic of this article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources indicating notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article would be an interesting article, if it was scourced. --TheRico152 (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not quite WP:NEO and it is not quite WP:TOOSOON, but it all feels like something recently made up that may not exist shortly. (I'll accuse myself of WP:IDONTLIKEIT before someone else does... --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I enjoy this article, find it to be relevant, and in fact have had the privilege of seeing the movement -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.105.116 (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong. Dubstep-Ballet is an upcoming movement that is well reckonised within both music and dance circles both in the UK and Sweden!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.234.254 (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC) — 212.20.234.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - So we will recreate this article (with reliable sources indicating notability) Bulwersator (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE, This is a legitimate entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.160.8.25 (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Do Not Delete** We are about to write an article about it in Toxin Magazine. It is an upcoming movement and has began to really gain some speed. http://www.toxinmagazine.co.uk It has earnt its place amoungst other art forms.

Will Poole- Editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.17.99 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC) — 109.155.17.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is an excellent article about an upcoming social movement - do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.78.170 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — 77.101.78.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete, whilst it is true that there are not the usual number of internet sources, or indeed 'convenetional' sources for this particular VSM it is nonetheless undoubtedly existent. It would be a shame for Wikipedia to err on the side of "this is not unequivocal online, so deletion advised" when the very philosophy of the dubstep ballet movement is that things exist in spaces 'out there' beyond the internet. I think the entry is valid, and I would argue that the referneces are valid and notable - why this claim Ryan Vesey? 194.82.210.247 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC) L. Brown BA MSc[reply]

Do not delete Qual a razão de se querer deletar esse artigo? Se trata de um artigo único, sobre um assunto único e inovador. O fato de que existem poucas referências e poucas informações a respeito só vem reforçar a originalidade do tema. Eu acho que a grande contribuição desse espaço é justamente essa: dar voz a idéias originais, antes que elas apareçam aos montes em qualquer pesquisa na internet. 189.107.20.86 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Translation of above): "Why would you want to delete this item? It is a single article on a subject unique and innovative. The fact that there are few references and little information about it only reinforces the originality of the topic. I think the great contribution of this space is precisely this: to give voice to original ideas before they appear in droves in any Internet search."--Coin945 (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, I was surprised to see a delete notice on this article. It's not drafted to perfection, but it deserves to stay in my opinion. It's wrong to use search engine hits as the gold standard of proof in this debate - can we please remember this is an underground movement! I wonder how many nascent modes of musical expression (jungle, dnb, dubstep itself!) that would have fallen foul of this criterion in the day just because of their youth? I've seen dubstep ballet in 2010 in Aldgate's Rhythm Factory (London), and know of several critical scenes going off in Glasgow and Canterbury. I have no doubt this is one that is going to grow. - M. Malinowski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.78.170 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE I happened across this page after searching Wikipedia for 'Dubstep Ballet' and am upset to find that it may possibly be deleted. I was introduced to Dubstep Ballet in March 2011 and signed up to the email newsletter, which keeps me informed of upcoming workshops in Edinburgh and surrounding areas. Understandably, Dubstep Ballet is not well know nationally, but there is a strong following in Glasgow which has reached Edinburgh - with more and more people spreading the word. Movements need to start somewhere, and to have a Wikipedia page only strengthens Dubstep Ballet's profile and will aid its progression in modern dance culture. Jojosephine2 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)G.Stride[reply]
D-d-d-delete I don't want to discount the above arguments from single-purpose accounts for keeping the article, so let's evaluate some of them, and hopefully, this will be an example how not to argue your case in deletion discussions:

I enjoy this article, find it to be relevant, and in fact have had the privilege of seeing the movement

Articles are not kept on Wikipedia because we like them.

Dubstep-Ballet is an upcoming movement that is well reckonised within both music and dance circles both in the UK and Sweden!!!

An up-and-coming movement should have been mentioned already in reliable sources. So far, I don't see any. I see lots of of sources that talk about other movements that are said to be related, but that doesn't say anything about dubstep ballet itself.

This is a legitimate entry.

This is an excellent article about an upcoming social movement - do not delete.

Actually, it's not, if you read the above comments from Ryan, Ginsengbomb, and others. So, these statements are meaningless.

...it is nonetheless undoubtedly existent

That's great. But even if it is verifiability, there are still issues of whether this is notable. And we can't determine that unless there is coverage of the movement in reliable sources.

The fact that there are few references and little information about it only reinforces the originality of the topic.

...can we please remember this is an underground movement

...the very philosophy of the dubstep ballet movement is that things exist in spaces 'out there' beyond the internet.

It doesn't especially matter whether the movement is underground, unique, or "beyond the internet". You can call it whatever you'd like. What matters is that there are sources that both verify and support the notability of the movement. They don't need to be online sources. But there are no sources that even mention the movement, and that is problematic for an article here according to our guidelines. Also, existence doesn't mean notability.

I think the great contribution of this space is precisely this: to give voice to original ideas before they appear in droves in any Internet search.

Actually, Wikipedia often comes up as the first search term for many topics like this one. But more importantly, Wikipedia isn't for promoting a movement and Wikipedia is definitely not the place for original research like the massive speculation on the origins of this movement.

Anyway, sorry folks. Coming in droves like this to a deletion discussion with arguments that reflect your misunderstanding of Wikipedia and its guidelines is never going to help your case. We can afford to wait until reliable source are published and can create this article then. But there really isn't much worth keeping here, so I'd advise against even userifying I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per I Jethrobot. My sentiments exactly, just couldn't find the most concise way to put it.--Coin945 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete The arguments put forward by the delete-happy crew are totally retarded. Surely it isn't Wikipedia's job to circle-jerk media/academic hacks in the narrow definitional spaces they have constructed for 'newsworthiness'. - Paulo Malvigno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.228 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attack other editors or make grandiose accusations that editors are in "delete-happy crew". For the record, I don't think notability is limited at all on Wikipedia-- There are several besides the general notability guideline. If you're concerned with what is considered notable on Wikipedia, you'll want to bring those sentiments over to the talk page of WP:GNG or on the numerous notability guidelines for specific topics. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:20, 20 December 2011 (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.