Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkour in popular culture (3rd nomination)

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. General support for keeping this article, but editors can discuss a merge to Parkour on the talk pages. Fences&Windows 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour in popular culture

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

Not worthy of a separate article. Many of the examples are duplicated from the existing parkour article. The article makes no attempt to discuss whether parkour has a notable place in popular culture and merely gives examples. Merge any useful content to main parkour article and delete rest. Brilliantine (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of the uses of a notable subject in notable films and other works in appropriate. In it not indiscriminate, since it is limited to the notable works in which it appears not all possible works. A well accepted type of article, Whether it should be limited to those instances where it plays a significant role in the story is an editorial decision, not a matter for AfD. In some of the works, it clearly does. An almost snow keep three months ago. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Partial Merge and Delete I agree with the nominator completely. Merge useful text to Parkour and delete the rest. DGG above has made some good points on notability of topics within this list article, but I see an issue with the usefulness of the list itself. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per WP:MAD and WP:IPC. Even if we somehow decide that most of this list is not useful, this page title should redirect to Parkour#Popular culture - deletion is not helpful. (Full disclosure: I am a traceur.) --Explodicle (T/C) 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the licensing issues posed, so can accept the idea of a redirect. However, I don't think the essay WP:IPC offers anything that allows the article to exist without passing the ~~policy~~ guideline WP:GNG. Brilliantine (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not a policy. Anyways, there's plenty of sources in the article that address the topic directly in detail. For example, this USA Today article and this Times Online article focus on parkour's effect on (and influence from) popular culture. I can understand a few cleanup tags, but it's certainly a viable topic. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, corrected. With regard to the articles you cite, they do not offer sufficient in-depth coverage of the influence of parkour on popular culture, and the little relevant material that is in those articles would be much better explored as part of a succinct piece of prose in the main parkour article, as suggested below. Note the articles are general articles on the popularity of parkour. Brilliantine (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Doomsdayer says, there is no need for a listing of trivia like this. A small section, in prose, may be warranted in the main article but an anal-retentive listing of every factoid and tidbit of information on Parkour being mentioned in popular culture is out of our scope and degrades our quality. I challenge the idea that this is a well-accepted type of article, per several of our guidelines and policies including WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT. Most all "in popular culture" type articles run afoul of these guidelines by their very nature. Them From Space 18:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkour in popular culture (2nd nomination) as its not a good thing to renominate an article a third time when the last discussion closed as "keep" and as it is a well-organized and well-referenced article. This non-trivial information is consistent with "WP:IS". Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is on the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Consensus can change... Brilliantine (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...but not usually in 75 days.--Milowent (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nom provides no reason why prior AfD was not closed correctly, or why consensus has changed in last 75 days.--Milowent (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving an AFD - which in this case had hardly anyone contributing to it - does not give an article a free pass to exist for some undefined amount of time. I have certainly seen consensus change more rapidly than 75 days. In any case, I feel I have proposed sound reasons for deletion based on policies and guidelines, something which I don't believe the nominator of the previous AFD did adequately. Brilliantine (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AFD for this was at the end of September. We shouldn't all have to come back here every few months and make the same arguments. Showing how often a legitimate thing is shown in popular culture is just fine. Dream Focus 02:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Showing how often a legitimate thing is shown in popular culture is just fine" - not agreed. To build an article purely out of examples of this is original research. An article subject should be notable and this should be proved by significant coverage in secondary sources. Brilliantine (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge cited portions and delete the rest. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:17, 18 December 2009 (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.