Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun fu

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. John254 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gun fu[edit]

While on the surface this article is reasonably written and organized, the term itself has not entered wide usage, and is a non-notable neologism/protologism. There is no reliable sourcing of the phrase being used in context: of the three web pages referenced, only one contains the words "gun fu," and it is referring to the comic book of the same title. Despite my Google searching (for "gun fu", "john woo", "john woo gun fu", and various combinations) I've been unable to find such a reliable source. That plus the OR tag that's been on the article for a while points to original research.

I feel like almost everyone understands what "gun fu" is supposed to mean. The term is used a few times in forums and informally, and it's on urban dictionary. But these reasons are not good enough to justify a Wikipedia article. FrankTobia (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your Google Fu is weak. I have cited two reliable sources and it seems quite feasible to add more. Note also that this is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary and so we don't just look for gun fu to denote the artistic concept that the article describes. I am most familiar with this as bullet ballet and have put a relevant pointer in the lede. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I agree that the exact term "gun fu" is not necessary in the source to count as a reference; the concept exists, and existed before there was a term for it. However, if you're looking for uses of the exact phrase, try the Village Voice [1], Variety [2], Wired [3], and the San Francisco Bay Guradian [4]. --Ig8887 (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Warden and Ig8887. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough reliable sources have been found to show the term is in use past the requirements of WP:NEO and is notable. Needs some good solid sourcing, but that's a cleanup issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep term is used by critics and journalists. Though bullet ballet might be better. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some people mistakes AfD for clean-up. I don't see original research, non-notability or neologism. If this article is not good, wikify it. But deletion is very extreme. Zerokitsune (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you, this AfD was not a mistaken clean-up attempt (though it's always good to see concerns addressed). I still don't think the term "gun-fu" is notable enough for its own article (though perhaps the concept is). While the concept is well known, a reliable description of what constitutes "gun fu" is particularly absent, and finding sourcing looks to continue to prove difficult (in my mind, the issue at hand of finding reliable sourcing still looks unlikely to be resolved: not just providing instances of people using the term "gun-fu," but actually talking about what it is and about it specifically). On the other hand, it looks like I'm clearly overruled. -FrankTobia (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with comment) I have seen the use of this term in enough articles, games and books that I would hesitate to delete for notability, but I don't think anyone can solidly argue that there is not original research in the article. Here are couple of examples that I am talking about
- The article quotes the term heroic bloodshed as a criteria. This related article only has one source and that is a self published article. (I think this would be a more valid AfD than Gun Fu.)
- For example, a classic gun fu move consists of reloading two pistols simultaneously by releasing the empty magazines, pointing the guns to the ground, dropping two fresh magazines out of one's jacket sleeves, or strapped to one's legs, into the guns, and then carrying on shooting. In the film Bulletproof Monk, Chow Yun Fat empties two pistols, ejects the magazines and spins to kick the empty magazines at his assailants. In The Rundown, the character played by Dwayne Johnson fires two shotguns, flips both to be up-side down and pointing backwards, and snaps them between his arms and torso to reload them in an instant. The style is also featured (albeit in a small way and with the assistance of gadgets) in the Lara Croft: Tomb Raider movies starring Angelina Jolie. Slavlin (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep most of the sources at the article don't use the term and one treats it as a WP:NEO but it is indeed a common term, even if it's often spontaneously re-created by writers. JJL (talk) 03:49, 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.