Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkour 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. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Parkour in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

When I arrived, the article was filled with listcruft. All trivial instances that did little to provide insight to the reader. Additionally, most were uncited, cited to unreliable sources, or contained information that was not backed up by the sources.

I went ahead and pruned it to include only reliably sourced material, but it now appears that there isn't enough to warrant a separate article. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a merge discussion. I also don´t understand why you sent it here. How will you resolve the problem of IPs sending lots of popular content without source to main article and at same time keeping it as GA article? Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 12:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - Good work Bdb484. It's a better page now.  I think it still needs more info on why the remaining examples are noteworthy, encyclopaedic, and contribute to an understanding of parkour's impact on society - I've expanded Casino Royale and Crackdown as a (bare bones) example.  Failing it miraculously expanding out to an excellent article, let's merge it back into Parkour, with an attached WP:POPCULTURE warning. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment - Upon second examination, many of the pop culture references deleted by Bdb484 genuinely are worthwhile, notable and significant. They just need better sources.  If anyone reading this is able to sift through the deleted stuff and reinstate it with better sources it'd be great.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Parkour is too bulky, that's appears to be reason this was broken out. --Milowent (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination does not seem to consider good alternatives to deletion such as merger into the main article. Our deletion and editing policies therefore indicate that the nomination is premature.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is still the better way to keep parkour listed as GA. If you merge into main article, bear in the mind that there is a great chance to the article be delisted. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 12:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This notion that a fork is an appropriate method to maintain an article's internal Wikipedia rating makes me very uncomfortable. First, if true, that means that this article does not deserve to exist at all since it somehow offends the rating system. If one contends that this Parkour in popular culture article is appropriate for Wikipedia, then the material should be appropriate in the main article. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Showing how often a legitimate thing is shown in popular culture is just fine.  D r e a m Focus  19:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fate of most "in popular culture" articles at AfD does not support your statement. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The "discovery" of parkour by the media has had fairly significant effects on film-making (particularly stunt work), on videogame design (particularly control schemes and avatar movement), and in other areas. It's worth exploring in an article.  It's just that it needs to be done well, with citation, and with entries only being added when they are capable of showing that the depiction of parkour in question had some real impact or notability, rather than merely having occurred. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for merging. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, merge would also be a good outcome. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:00, 28 September 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.