Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style


 * 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 Gangnam Style.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style

 * – ( 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 ✍ ✉ 21:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC) (Talkback) 21:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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) 18:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gangnam Style. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day
 * Merge to Gangnam Style North8000 (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Gangnam Style. Many of the notable people on this list are already mentioned within the "Cultural impact" section of the song's main article. The others can be incorporated easily enough.  Gongshow  Talk 05:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time I counted, it was only two. The list is separate from the cultural impact section -A1candidate (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hasselhoff, Weiwei, Kapoor, Schmidt, Spears, Madonna, Hammer, Melanie Brown, Furtado, Ki-moon, Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Vettel, Gayle, Djokovic, and Degeneres are 16 that are mentioned in both articles. To be fair, I should have added that many of these are in the "Live performances" section rather than just the "Cultural impact" section.  Gongshow  Talk 23:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is a fraction of the actual list, not to mention that I would have significantly expanded it (as I have been doing in good faith if you looked at the article's history), had it not been nominated for deletion -A1candidate (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My comments merely reflect the list in its current state, and I think it would be quite manageable (and without violating WP:UNDUE) to place the remaining 19 names (at present) in the main article in a couple brief paragraphs.  Gongshow  Talk 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Its more than 19 names now, it would be better to categorize the names in this article instead of merging -A1candidate (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, noteworthy and significant coverage of this particular aspect of the phenomenon documented in ample secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, this isn't an indiscriminate list - Only famous people whose dance moves were noted in independent sources are included and everyday a few carefully selected persons are added to expand the list -A1candidate (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete do not merge, violates WP:LISTCRUFT as its a trivial interception and indiscriminate list of subjects that are not notable simply for just "dancing" the Gangman Style. Fails WP:NOT, WP:RECENTISM, WP:GNG as the subject of "celebrities dancing the Gangnam Style" is either trivial, primary sources like YouTube or human interest stories which we had consensus before that it's not fully significant of the topic. Secret account 00:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not News: You have to be more specific about why you think this is news
 * Does not fail GNG: Only 3 out of 50 refs are YouTube videos, and those 3 are official uploads (not user-uploads). Rest of the references are independent, notable sources
 * Not Listcruft: Subjects are chosen carefully for their prominence in various fields of life
 * Not recentism: The entire Gangnam Style and related topics 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.
 * Comment: The subject "danced Gangnam Style" is a notable topic. -A1candidate (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is that if any of these people are notable simply for dancing the Gangman Style, which they are not. You are ignoring my major concern completely. Your giving reasons why Gangman Style is notable, which it is, but list of people dancing isn't notable at all. All human interest stories, trivial mentions, unreliable sources, and so forth. Not an encyclopedic topic at all WP:RECENTISM for the list in particular, not the song. Secret account 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never encountered any rule/guideline which specifically supports your major concern. If such a rule did exist, a whole lot of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted: For example, almost everyone in List of atheists in music didn't get famous just for being atheists, just like people in this list did not achieve their fame from dancing Gangnam Style, but rather from their contributions in other areas of life. And I have been constantly monitoring this article in good faith, throwing out unreliable sources and ensuring that the notable person's dance moves is actually the headline/title of the source, could you please give some examples of the supposedly "trivial mentions" and "unreliable sources" that you claim exist -A1candidate (talk) 08:45, 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.