Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style phenomenon

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 prevailing opinion seems to be that this is a content fork, that is, it unnecessarily duplicates information in other articles or the topic of other articles. The "keep" opinions don't address this problem. If there is content here that needs to be merged to the other article(s), the history can be restored for that purpose. Sandstein 09:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gangnam Style phenomenon

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

Content fork of Gangnam Style#Cultural impact and Gangnam Style in popular culture. There's an active merge proposal dealing with those two already; what purpose does a third article on the subject serve? And while the popularity of "Gangnam Style" has indeed been referred to as a phenomenon by media, the meaning there is just that its popularity is phenomenal. It's not an actual phenomenon. The article's lede can barely describe the "Gangnam Style phenomenon" as a discreet concept, which is telling. BDD (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To the "Pop Culture" article. That's...pretty much what it is now anyways - all allusions to it in pop culture. The info is detailed, sourced, and relevent, so it should be kept, just not at this article/name. Sergecross73 msg me 03:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also, I'd like to point out that the Merger discussion between the original article and the pop culture article, was closed as a "don't merge", so there's no worries about merging into an article that doesn't exist or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 03:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update Article redirected to Gangnam Style-A1candidate (talk)
Note: another article on the topic has been created, which I have nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style by country. dci | TALK 18:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NORUSH. Once the "charm" has worn off, and people move on to the next flavor-of-the-week, these articles will all be merged together or deleted anyway. This "phenomenon" will end up in the dustbin right next to the "Macarena Phenomenon" and all of the other "Phenomenons". This happens all the time and is predictable.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is clear from this version of the page before it was prematurely redirected during ongoing AFD discussion, that it is noteworthy, educational, encyclopedic, and covered in numerous secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sue Rangel and WP:RECENTISM. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This phenomenon passes the WP:10 year test: Its the first time a video approaches one billion views, its has topped more national music charts than Macarena (or any other comparable phenomenon) ever did, its success is something that the South Korean music industry has worked on for twenty years and the song will be remembered for K-pop's (Korean pop) breakthrough in the US music market. I split up Gangnam Style phenomenon into two articles, therefore the original should be Deleted, but Gangnam Style by country and Effects of Gangnam Style should be Kept -A1candidate (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why the "Effects" and "By Country" articles need to be separate though, especially considering a large section of the "Effects" one is about flash mobs by country. The rest of it, largely focused on Korean culture, would fit just fine at the original GS article, or in the "By Country" one under "Korea". I don't see the need for three articles here. An article about the song, and the article about the impact, whatever you want to name it, seems plenty sufficient. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep:136 fucking References and you want to delete this,shame one you.74.163.16.121 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the actual nomination, and some of my comments. The issue isn't just "deletion", its where the information belongs and what it should be called. A big concern is the use of the word "phenomenon" and why this information couldn't be placed in an already existing similar article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And each of those references is essentially for a piece of trivia about "Gangnam Style," not describing a nonexistent phenomenon. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having 136 refs doesn't mean anything at all. I dont see the point of merging "Effects" and "By country" because they're clearly separate topics. Gangnam Style's main article is about a song, its okay to summarize its effects but anything more would be out of scope. I agree that "phenomenon" may not be an appropriate word and should be Deleted, but Gangnam Style by country and Effects of Gangnam Style should be Kept and expanded. -A1candidate (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles are redundant of each other though. All the "by country" article does is outline the song's "effects". If you want to outline information "by country", that's fine, but that really seems more like a way to organize the "effects" article, not two separate articles. Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sense in having two articles covering largely the same topic. However, I would propose that Gangnam Style in popular culture be merged into this article, or merging "phenomenon" into "popular culture," but then changing the title to "Gangnam Style phenomenon." I don't hold strongly to this, but I do hold strongly (80-100%) that the articles should be Merged, not deleted. Oppa Gangnam Regards, Jeremy -- =) khfan93 (t) (c) 20:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are something like 5-7 articles about this now, all saying essentially the same thing in different ways. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/proposal: There needs to be some sort of effort to cut down on the number of articles on this subject. I understand the concerns about "too many references", but there is absolutely no need for this many near-duplicates. Two articles should suffice, one on the song/music video itself and one on the phenomenon. dci | TALK 03:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just merge all 3 pages?~Tailsman67~ 74.178.177.48 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to content duplication, I see no need for an outright merger. If deleting the unnecessary reiterations isn't accepted here, redirecting would seem the best course of action. dci | TALK 03:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As silly as this ridiculous video is, it has sparked a phenomenon. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 13:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously unnecessary fork. Essentially a duplicate. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 8 December 2012 (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.