Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style in popular culture


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam Style in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a content fork. There is no notable content here that cannot be found in similar article forks. There is already an article about this song. We don't need any more. See WP:RECENTISM --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gangnam Style. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gangnam Style North8000 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, not recentism: This phenomenon passes the WP:10 year test: Its the first time a video approaches one billion views, its success is something that the South Korean music industry has worked on for twenty years and the song will be remembered for K-pop's (Korean pop) breakthrough in the US music market -A1candidate (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These all seem like they would be logical arguments if the song itself was up for AfD. But this is purely on the song in popular culture, which the points you make don't really apply so much to.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article itself is based on the song, to expand sections of the song too long to make it comfortable for the reader to read. -A1candidate (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, there was just a failed merge proposal. CallawayRox (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ...which is exactly why it needs to be deleted. There is little point in merging 5-7 articles that are all essentially the same. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 7 articles is alot. It's still not a approved use of AFD. CallawayRox (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a multiple content fork. Duplicate info, and quite frankly, spam. It could probably be speedied on that alone. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SPEEDY?? Why don't you try and report back how that goes. You already failed with PROD. CallawayRox (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it will help a lot if User:Sue Rangell would provide more information on which parts of the article she thinks is duplicated. Also, I believe most of the references are provided to support and verify the content of this article, and does not exactly meet the requirements for Spam. It would be great if to explain and be more specific about this -A1candidate (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources of this particular aspect of the noteworthy worldwide phenomenon. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete This is an example farm, and if trimmed to purely content logical for an entry it would be contained in the article for the song itself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, Nothing wrong with that except the article may need to be copy edited in prose form after the trend has died down, but otherwise it has almost as much variety as World War II in popular culture -A1candidate (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge: per WP:NOTNEWS. There are plenty of articles that deserve detailed subpages.  I'm afraid this isn't one of them  p  b  p  19:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - purely trivial material. Against the current (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge any useful content (not just celebrities randomly commenting the song on Twitter and such) to Gangnam Style phenomenon and trim. Most of the content violates certain criteria of WP:NOT, WP:GNG and WP:RS among others, yet there's probably some useful information in this article, and yes "Gangnam Style" is a phenomenon covered by thousands of reliable sources, and it won't die off anytime soon, that's why it should be merged to one article. Also comparing this to World War II in popular culture is absurd to say the least. Secret account 23:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bleh poor deletion with Gangnam Style phenomenon article as I thought that title better explains this topic, I guess Merge to the song or Weak Keep and trim. Like I said above the song is considered a pop culture phenomenon that simply won't die off, thus meeting WP:GNG (unlike the people who performed the dance with is unencyclopedic), but some of the content is pushing our guidelines and policies and needs to be trimmed. Secret account 22:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep : Since Gangnam Style phenomenon was deleted. You have to be more specific about which part violates WP:NOT, WP:GNG and WP:RS. Comparing this to World War II in popular culture isn't absurd because both are equally important events noted by millions of people around the world -A1candidate (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, you're seriously saying that Gangnam Style and World War II (where millions of people were killed), are "equally important events"? Are you trolling? Against the current (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently he did, you can't compare no song, singer, even most presidents and such to the atrocities of World War II. Comments like that doesn't help the situation. Also as you voted keep the first time, you can not double vote so I crossed out the second keep. Secret account 22:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gangnam Style phenomenon was deleted because it was just copied content from this article.    D r e a m Focus  01:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cirt. The article seems too large to merge and there's a lot of well sourced information.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 23:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough valid information to fill its own article, it thus a valid content fork. Category:Topics in popular culture shows many such articles like this exist, and always have existed in Wikipedia. A Google search list hordes more that aren't put in that category yet.  It is useful to see just how much influence something had on other notable media around the world.   D r e a m Focus  01:39, 10 December 2012 (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.