Talk:J-Setting

POV issues
This article reads like a People magazine piece. 75.187.57.61 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple-issues tag
I've made a first pass at trying to bring this article up to standard, but it suffers from virtually no referencing as well as WP:TONE and highly serious WP:NOR issues, as well as poor organization and Manual of Style issues. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability
This article has iffy notability per the WP:GNG. WP:NMUSIC doesn't seem to apply. Current referencing includes a lot of WP:USERGENERATED content; currently, the best reference would be appear to be #5, (Anderson-2015). Here's find sources, but it generates a lot of false positives:

For example, of the top 50 results linked under "News", none are about J-setting; that's not a good sign. The web search link is almost useless, the "140,000 results" tally can be ignored and most of it is a torrent of user generated stuff, and much of the rest are false positives. I managed to find some possibly good sources, and added them to Further reading. Most of them seem to apply more to the Prancing Elites than to J-Setting as a main topic, however. "Prancing Elites" appears to be more notable, but it is not the same topic as J-Setting; perhaps the article should be recast as Prancing Elites, with "J-Setting" altered to a redirect. Of the sources I found, perhaps the one that most supports J-Setting as its own topic, is Kowal-2017 (Oxford Handbook). Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the issue. J-Setting is notable enough for its own page if you do accurate and fair research.Broadmoor (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see Notability, and attempt to find good sources to add to the article (as I have been doing). Simply asserting that "J-Setting is notable" doesn't make it notable. You have to measure it against the Notability policy.  Also, what do you mean by "if you do accurate and fair research"? Care to expand on that? Mathglot (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a college educated man. I read it and your critiques are unfounded.  It's notable against all measures. Maybe you should start in the well cited mainstream section of the page. Very few collegiate dancelines have had the impact the Prancing J-Settes have.  Also it seems like you're being antagonizing, what evidence you have they are not notable in their own right? Look at their social media following on and so forth as well.  All these things are easy researchable so I'm surprised I need to elaborate on anything, especially with you being an editor.  Editors are supposed to be skilled researchers.Broadmoor (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Entertainment/sette-dance-moves-loved-knowing/story?id=19041546 There's an article by ABC News for crying out loud! How many collegiate dancelines have ABC News writing articles about them.  There are so many things that pop up when I search J-Setting and the Prancing J-Settes from notable media outlets on top of that.  Like clearly you have no idea what you're talking about and just looking to discredit the page but it's not going to happen.Broadmoor (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing, as evidence that something is not notable, except in the failure to find evidence that it is notable. This is why the WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to add material to an article, or to find that an article is notable. As I said before, simply stating that something is notable, as in "It's notable against all measures." doesn't make it notable. To your credit, between my last message and yours, you added three references, all to egrove.olemiss.edu; that's a start. Since your last message, you added four more, although some of them are videos, and I haven't looked to see if those help establish WP:Notability or not; and I haven't looked at the other two.

Either you didn't notice, or didn't choose to acknowledge, that the strongest effort to demonstrate evidence of WP:Notability of the topic, is in fact by myself, where I added eight sources in these three edits, some or all of which are probably reliable and may help establish notability. Many of those sources aren't directly about the topic, but one is (Kowal), and it may be enough. The evaluation of whether an article is Notable or not, is done by evaluating the topic (i.e., the title) against the General Notability Guideline. It's not about how many sources are, or aren't in the article. Notability has to do with a topic, not with the state of the article. Ultimately, notability is determined by the consensus of editors, in one form or another (DR, Afd, Rfc, etc.).

Regarding some of your language above, I'll have something to say at your user page; this is not the proper venue for that, since on this page, we should stick to discussing how to improve the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I should add in reply to your comment that "Very few collegiate dancelines have had the impact the Prancing J-Settes have": you may be right about that. If the sources bear that out, as well they might, then that would argue for the notability of the topic Prancing J-Settes. That, in fact, is what I suspect may be the case, here, and why I think there probably will end up having to be some kind of rename, or split; namely, I think when one looks carefully at the situation, it will turn out that either the topic Prancing J-Settes or Prancing Elites is notable, or both of them are, and J-Setting is not, and will end up being a redirect. But that remains to be seen.
 * There are several ways to get there: one way is consensus among editors here through discussion, although given your previous stance, that doesn't seem likely. Another way, is via the Rfc process, which will draw uninvolved editors to seek their opinion. A third way, is via an WP:Afd, i.e., a deletion request. That would serve about the same function as an Rfc, since it would draw uninvolved editors. If other editors don't find this discussion, and we can't find some middle ground, then probably it should go to an Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have multiple degrees in STEM and can't follow the conversation happening. No one has been able to prove the Prancing J-Settes and J-Setting isn't notable and won't be able to. There's a whole section on the page with sources validating why both are notable. I've even added extra from ABC News. What's going on? Am I really dealing with fair and rational editors right now? I feel like this is a clear sabotage attempt.Broadmoor (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No split
As someone close to the Prancing J-Settes and J-Setting culture, there should be no split because they are practically co-dependent. There will be no J-Setting without the Prancing J-Settes and the Prancing J-Settes popularity and evolution wouldn't exist if it wasn't for J-Setting in the LGBT community (and mainstream).Broadmoor (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that these should not be two articles, but not quite for the same reason you do. Please see the move request (forthcoming) about this. Mathglot (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)