Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capoeira in popular culture (2nd 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Capoeira in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to be just a collection of random facts, violating WP:IINFO as well as WP:V. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WP:SS spinout of Capoeira--merging it back into the article would make the original article unwieldy. Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a breakout of the main page; Question: Per a search here on "in popular culture" it appears that many of these types of articles have been redirected back to their main articles (e.g., Kilroy was here in popular culture) and many still exist (e.g., Zombies in popular culture). Is there some sort of precedent or style guide for these or is it the usual "when do you fork-for-length" judgement call? I think the info. should be kept as encyclopedic (and don't think there's a WP:V issue; for the cases where there is, cull the offending item), but I don't know what the best format for this info. is. JJL (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur with Stifle. As a topic, the appearance of Capoeira in popular culture isn't likely to be notable and isn't evidenced as such in the article except as a synthesis. As for the content, most of it is an indiscriminate listing of details that don't even have to do with Capoeira.  This article isn't about a single subject but rather a multitude of different subjects loosly drawn together through original research to claim that it is Capoeira.  There's really nothing to merge back into the original article, as the few cited statements fall under different subjects entirely, such as Kickboxer 4, a gay porn studio, Hellboy II, and Paul Simon. This is what happens when articles don't stick to a strict, defined, and notable subject. Them  From  Space  06:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * week keep Reasonable but needs a clear out for some unsourced synthesis, where it is assumed it's Capoeira because it looks a bit like it then see how big it is. --Nate1481 07:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I generally don't like these lists, and this one contains some entries that are either OR or sheer opinion, but the article has enough potential to be ok if re-written. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. As a Capoeirista, I have found this article helpful in finding more information on the topic. It does indeed follow the guidelines for the Tree of Knowledge. I can personally vouch for most of the information contained in this article. I have experienced 75% of all the topics listed, and believe them to be true. As far as references, this article is incredibly weak. It is perhaps due to the reason that Capoeira itself is an up and coming martial art. Most people don't even know about it, hence finding information substantiating the claims that Capoeira is found everywhere in modern pop culture will be DIFFICULT. But rest assured, I believe I can help clean this article up, and prove to everyone that Capoeira is evident in pop culture. Those details that are vaguely connected to Capoeira, I will be more than happy to delete, but I believe one will be surprised with how few details I actually have to delete. Most of these are true, and I merely have to spend the time to find the resources. I like JJL's comment that other main articles have pop culture spin offs, and these are still around today. Capoeira is just not as easy of an idea to wrap one's head around. I assure you all, almost all of these details are related to Capoeira and are justifiable. Just because one cites many different sources of popular culture to define how Capoeira is all around us, doesn't mean that they are not sticking to a subject. The subject is Capoeira. It is in every detail, and is kept throughout the article. Their is no valid claim to delete this article. Ryt 007 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It seems that it might be enough for an article, but finding more and better cites may be difficult. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the fictional work directly. These references are needed, but they can be supplied. any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the  artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. That is not the case here. I do not see the problem with V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged the art is not  in the work mentioned, it does have to be demonstrated; I do not see the problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given.  The use of a method of fighting is generally a significant plot element in film and the like--many films focus around it & it is even the primary interest sometimes.  DGG (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove non-notable or trivial references and rewrite as prose where possible. In my quick glance through the article, I noticed the following: "One of the BBC 'Rhythm & Movement' idents introduced to BBC One in 2002 shows a capoeira dance, which raised its profile in the United Kingdom. While the attention capoeira has received has caused a boom of interest in this martial art, more skeptical capoeiristas have argued that the way it is used in the media is misrepresentative of what capoeira truly is." If the two parts of this statement can be reliably sourced, I see the beginnings of an interesting and encyclopedic discussion about the emergence of Capoeira in popular culture. Mr_pand [ talk | contributions ] 09:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.