Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robot (dance)


 * 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. There's a lot of discussion here, but the core issue is the quality of the sources, and the only arguments that really stay on--topic there are 's list of sources and 's accurate analysis of them. In the end (and with apologies to Rhododendrites's blown mind), I don't see either side making an irrefutable argument, so I'm going to have to call this a draw. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Robot (dance)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article's topic fails WP:N. It has not been covered by media sources considered reliable. Most of the google search results for the topic are from specialized media related to and advocating for the dance form. By implication it fails WP:RS: the articles aren't from what's considered reliable. This article's duration and visits is of limited relevance. If a broken down house by the side of a road has been seen by thousands--it's still a broken down house. Tapered (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator rationale. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -Reliable secondary sources such as this and this and this can be found, demonstrating that this is  a notable form of hip hop dance with a global reach. ABF99 (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the articles has "signifcant coverage" (quote from WP:N) that warrants a dedicated article in Wikipedia. Tapered (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per ABF99's arguments and sources. Theredproject (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to Popping - ??? "Specialized media related to and advocating for the dance form"? The 13 million ghits? I see reliable sources just in the first page. It's an extremely well known dance (at least in the US). My mind will be blown if this doesn't get WP:SNOWed. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Updated !vote to add "or Merge". The subject is clearly notable, it's not entirely certain that it should be a stand-alone article rather than be an expanded part of the popping article or another article related to breakdancing (many of the sources connect it to one or both of these). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please. Show a link of a reliable source with significant coverage. Tapered (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sifting through the number of search results one receives when trying to find sources for a cultural icon can be a pain, indeed, but these's no shortage. These are the product of 5 minutes or so of looking: Diary of an Ex Soul Train Dancer @ Soul Train, Dancing machines: a brief history of the robot dance @ Trivia Happy, Robot Dance Is a Winner with William @ The News Letter, The Soul Train History Book Presents: The Mighty Mighty Jackson 5! @ Soul Train, Underground Dance Masters (spans a few pages), Hip-Hop and Urban Dance, B-Boys: A Children's Guide to Hip Hop, PETER Crouch may have retired his famous robot dance.(Features) @ Liverpool Echo, The Robot @ Locker Legends, WHY, ROBOT? Artists Try to Break Record for Synchronised Robot Dance @ Sunday Mercury... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That many is obfuscation, but I did slog through. Only 3 of those are remotely in the vicinity of significant coverage by a reliable source. 2 are behind a pay wall. The other is a website called "Trivia Happy," that does give significant coverage. I think it's safe to say that a larger number of hits would produce a similar pattern. If the admin(s) who close this out consider it, or something similar, to be reliable, it's their call. Tapered (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Nominator has a very valid point. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – More sources. North America1000 05:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment – If not independently notable, a merge to List of dances would enhance that article. North America1000 05:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article needs paring and/or improvement with more sourcing, but the topic of this 10 year old article appears to be clearly notable.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bzzzzt, rrrrrrtt, Keep. I guess an argument could be made that it should be merged but that's not the argument that has been put forth here. Not seeing a delete argument at all. Artw (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither of the previous "Keeps" make a reasoned argument on their behalf. One takes the trouble to assert WP:N without any backing evidence. I'm leaning toward incorporation in some larger dance article after the suggestions of North America1000 and Rhododendrites Tapered (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added two cites to the article. To be clear, the nomination here appears to come from a lack of knowledge of American pop culture of the 70s.  There are thousands of articles just like this one that could be nominated because the nominator assumes they are non-notable, as they really do need improvement.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added two more cites now. Tapered, I know your nomination was in good faith, but instead of digging in against the keep votes, there's no shame in realizing it is in reality an article that needs work on a notable subject, based on the comments on your fellow editors.  That's what this discussion is for.  Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, the shame! This is about a choice--does this have WP:N or not? Collectively, let alone individually, the cites don't have sufficient coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. A section in a larger article--yes. Wikipedia is not a hobby farm for people seeking to confer notoriety on their interests. Perhaps I can convince the powers-that-be to encode and state that concept/bracketing definition in WP:NOT. Tapered (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, you're correct--there is no shame in admitting a mistake. I was wrong. Wikipedia IS (in part, only in part, not collectively) a hobby farm, because many of the admins who make the final decisions @ AfD allow the feel-good bromides of enthusiasts to trump reasoned argument. Another editor and I were recently made a series of excellent reasoned, coherent comments endorsing an article's deletion. The more numerous 'Keepers' made no reasoned, fact-based rebuttals or Wikipedia-guidelines-based justifications for keeping the turkey. Rest assured, it's still gobbling. Tapered (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not any different than the rest of the world. Figure out how to make the turkey of life better.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  15:37, 15 September 2015 (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.