Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Circus


 * 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   merge to Contemporary circus. (non-admin closure) Baseball   Watcher  01:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Extreme Circus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not yet notable term or phrase, recently coined (feb 2010) not yet notable.  @ d \/\/ | | | Talk 11:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I can't find the mentioned Brimbank weekly article, or any other related news. The other problem is "Extreme" can be used in so many contexts, "this looks like an extreme circus, awesome", "dude look at those extreme circus tricks" etc.  @ d \/\/ | | | Talk 12:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I expected to do some searching and quickly conclude delete, but it wasn't so easy. It is a harder term to search because the phrase 'extreme circus' is used incidently in a lot of articles.  A little more work gave me  and others.  The term is used extensively in news reports to describe a type of circus, so it appears to be a very valid and accepted term (whodathough).  The question remains, however, if it is more than a WP:DICDEF, as I didn't find a lot on the concept of 'extreme circus', just a lot of valid usage and a couple of circuses that use that as part of their name (there is much I didn't search, so it may still exist). The current article, however, is wrong and the term wouldn't be credited in 2010, as it was in use before that.  In it's current form, there really isn't anything of value (no sourcing, inaccurate info), so transwiki to wiktionary isn't really a choice.  This might be a good candidate for a rescue, as the subject matter *might* be notable on its own, but would require a complete rewrite.  Withholding !vote for now. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a little but it is a difficult subject to research. Hoping the rescue tag will attract an editor or two with more experience with these types of articles.  I'm still bordering on keep, but reserving my notvote until I see more input on the article.  Dennis Brown (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The term is used in many places to describe something more than just a regular circus. Austin Chronicle  D r e a m Focus  15:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Sydney Morning Herald says "Its genre, known as extreme circus, is a fusion of free-form acrobatics, hip-hop, virtuosic percussion and beat-boxing, a type of rapping." See?  Its a genre, a major newspaper defines it.   D r e a m Focus  17:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except there's little indication that Cirque du Soleil, the most prominent practitioners of this "genre", meets the musical component of this 'definition' -- which seems to be speaking of the 'Tom Tom Club' act, rather than the genre as a whole. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you bother to read that article, it says "They draw the audience into the performance through continuous live music".  D r e a m Focus  12:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. If you read the article you would notice that it gives no indication that Cirque du Soleil's musical repertoire is based around "hip-hop, virtuosic percussion and beat-boxing, a type of rapping." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Austin Chronicles says "stunning sets, outrageous costumes, modern music, and an attention to art in every aspect of the production" . Exactly what type of music they use, isn't really relevant.  No animals, just a lot of stunts and constant music, etc.   D r e a m Focus  14:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) "Exactly what type of music" is very relevant, because the SMH article specifies "exactly what type of music" in its definition -- a type that does not appear to match Cirque du Soleil's music. (ii) No mention is made of "constant music" in either cited source, as far as I can ascertain. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the Austin Chronicle is describing Cirque du Soleil specifically, not 'extreme circus' generally (in fact it barely mentions the latter, in a passing reference, in discussing "most obvious differences between the original and the assortment of 'extreme circus' imitations" late in the article). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It mentions other "extreme circuses" exist, calling itself the original and the rest just imitations. That proves that extreme circuses do exist.  There is music.   D r e a m Focus  16:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ITEXISTS! Big fragging deal! And the source spends one whole sentence on this existence. T_R_I_V_I_A_L mention. Notability . HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep (see comments above) per new citations found and added that demonstrate the word is in common usage and a separate genre. Thanks to   D r e a m Focus  for digging up the refs.  At this point, needs some tags as stub, but passes wp:n.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge (to Circus, per Dthomsen8 below [or to Contemporary circus ]) the Austin Chronicle article is on Cirque du Soleil, not 'extreme circus' generally, and the SMH article is (i) rather short & (ii) on the topic of a (second, if less well-known) specific act, rather than 'extreme circus' generally. This does not appear to be "significant coverage" on this topic (to which both sources are tangential). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Merge with Circus and create a redirect to the section. There are only 55 prose words in this article--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge may be the best option. It is just hard to find anything with reliable sources, with several trying.  Dennis Brown (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball   Watcher  01:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge into Contemporary circus which seems the best place to document various modern developments of the traditional format. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree I believe Merging would be the best option now. Adwiii  Talk   21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Contemporary circus per above arguments. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge If its the same thing, merge it. This is a real thing, a notable genre, and there should be an article for it.  Doesn't matter what its called, as long as the article exist.   D r e a m Focus  17:37, 9 May 2011 (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.