Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Virtual dance

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is not an actual article on the subject of virtual dance (which might well exist), nor even a proper encyclopedia article on the subject of Dance in Second Life, but instead an ancient forgotten essay/how-to guide from 2010 with no useful sources (all of the references are individual dance shows) that belongs on a Second Life fan wiki, not Wikipedia. In the unlikely event someone wants to write an article on this topic a WP:TNT seems warranted. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting as their still seems to be a discussion about this possible deletion. This isn't about the nominator or this nomination but whether notability can be established for this subject according to Wikipedia's standards. That's really all that matters in all deletion discussions.
 * Delete Essay or some sort of OR. I'm not even sure how we'd source this, for Second Life? It needs a TNT at the very least, but I'd just get rid of it. Some strange hybrid of Second Life and an essay on how to program dancing avatars. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete How has this essay survived so long? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would it be 'unlikely' to write or read about this topics on Wikipedia? That seems just an uninformed assumption because there are more than one place where this is a 'hot' item.  2 3 4 That's not to say that I very much liked the format and contents of the lemma as it is or was, but with some others I did my best to give it a broader base to stand on. To at least mention and show a few examples of it, to mention different approaches. Of course it can be (re-)written and enhanced, in many other ways, or a with a renewed title it could include the notion 'in Second Life' to start with...
 * *Merge and reworke it (probably truncated to a stub, or as a kind of 'gallery page'). IMO A. critisizing the content and format of a lemma and B. marginalizing the topic are two different things. It should be more clearly differentiated why the complete topic or just (parts of the content) need to be removed. I think contributions from members of minority groups like world of art should be welcome and FEEL TO BE WELCOME on wiki. I think that this is of vital importance for the project. Pelikana (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's no obvious choice to me why to want to delete this more open and general lemma on one hand and why to keep the single topic lemma with an ongoing history of blatant SP on the other hand. Nominator will know which one I mean. I think they could be merged and that it is undesirable that every new and coming dance troupe in SL has hers own lemma. Pelikana (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominator will know which one I mean. Sorry, what? I clearly don't, nor do I understand the acronym SP, or what you are contrasting this article to (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). The rest of this comment fares no better; the sources you provided could be used by someone else to write a proper article (some of them do seem notability-building from a quick glance), but that article would bear no resemblance to the essay currently occupying this title so I maintain a WP:TNT at best is warranted.  I think contributions from members of minority groups like world of art should be welcome and FEEL TO BE WELCOME on wiki - this has nothing to do with being welcoming, it's about upholding consistent standards rather than letting articles fall through the cracks. And that's why I think it's unlikely anyone cares - this article received no attention whatsoever in the 2-year period from January 2021 to when I filed this AfD, which is much stronger evidence of unimportance than your speculation. * Pppery * it has begun...  01:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I reworked this lemma. I hope someone can notice and appreciate the changes. thanks. I think my care is evidence enough about the fact that at least one wikipedian cares about the topic. It might be a right speculation that nobody would be eager after deletion and having to start a lemma already prefilled with a text saying : this lemma was deleted before. The text was: delete asap. Pelikana (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Now it doesn't meet GNG as there are no RS discussing it, it's basically fan sites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * this article received no attention whatsoever in the 2-year period from January 2021 He writes only half the truth, as usual. Evidence:pageviews Virtual_dance The page has had visitors. ktxbye.Pelikana (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Median of one, daily average of 3, doesn't really help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The original sentence that started this speculation war was In the unlikely event someone wants to write an article on this topic [...] - it was refering to interest from Wikipedians, not interest from readers. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess if someone had taken the talk route, it could have become a constructive coöperation instead of a war like needless disturbance on commons while user was available for a dialog. Pelikana (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

But what the heck is a "lemma"? Please do not use jargon in discussions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Nomader  ( talk ) 02:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I found some small commentary about it. A small article from VentureBeat about virtual dance club in a VR space, and a couple passing mentions of some clubs in a virtual space . It's just not really there right now. I could see an article that talks about "emotes" in video games and their rise as being a really interesting subject (in a way that our Emote article doesn't really cover as a subject), but this article here definitely isn't it, and "virtual dance" seems limited to Second Life discussion circa 2005 in passing mentions. It's clear this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nomader  ( talk ) 02:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: The idea of "virtual dance" as a modern art form is an unquestionably notable topic (ask, and I can provide sources). However, that is not really what this article is about. It is about dancing in Second Life and undoubtedly needs a WP:TNT. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is now a small group of sources on my talk page for a future article after being requested! Why? I Ask (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOR. The subject is probably notable, but would require a full WP:TNT and rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nomination and WP:TNT. Sergecross73   msg me  13:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment per WP:TNTTNT - not brilliant yet at all, and/but it can't be improved within a week while it seems to be in be in a trash bin already. Even though I can understand the strong urge to hide it's tragic history, it would be a falsification of both SL and WP history to pretend the article (aka lexeme, ~lemma) was created any time later than 2010. I still propose a title change to something like "Virtual dance in Second Life" or just "Dance in Second Life", but this can't be done during this discussion. Challenged material can still be sourced, irrelevant detail and obvious nonsense can be removed. There seems to be an abundance of visual material on sites like flickr, youtube and vimeo plus lots of fanpages on sites like FB that sufficiently cover it's existence and it's relevance to visitors of virtual worlds. But avatar-dancers and photographers are not necessarily skilled writers and writers-art historians are not necessarily interested to engage themselves as a wikipedian or may have other WP priorities. Peli_ (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are are only allowed one bolded "!vote". This is your second. Please amend this. Sergecross73   msg me  11:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that there isn't enough sources for this to be a notable enough topic in Wikipedia. It's frustrating and true what you say about a lack of coverage of internet and digital art in some cases (I've been part of a deletion discussion recently that talked about just that), but we have inclusion standards that we rigorously uphold to (that weren't really as well enforced back in 2010) and this specific topic here misses the mark.
 * I'd recommend that if you want to preserve the memory of this page, taking it to one of the Second Life-specific wikis would be more appropriate, as adding it to the Second Life page here would be undue. (Fandom:, the official Second Life wiki: ) Nomader  ( talk ) 19:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi the problem with this page, which started as pure Self Promotion (SP) by a new single-topic Wikipedian, is that the phenomenon of dancing in virtual worlds is as common as a 'dinner plate' or a 'wooden table' in the real world. Everyone, every avatar, knows it, everyone (millions of people) used it within hours after entering their virtual world, but nobody writes a lenghty study about it. Afterall it is just an adjective and a noun, that does not have any deeper meaning without detailing the context. Without the third coördinate (f.e. the technical context of the specific virtual world) it stays very flat. I would not want to start long articles about each of the possible combinations like 'Virtual Architecture', 'Virtual breeding', 'Virtual sailing' etc. These could better be just small paragraphs in their parent articles like the Virtual World by name, where they can be easily referenced with just a few very good references. - Dancing with VR headsets did not exist in 2010 in notable ways. Now it is seen in almost every promoclip about VR events. So there need to be some more differentiation. The relay race stick needs to be picked up by more than one author soon. I'm passing on this one soon, even though it would  be not to hard to properly source a limited article on this topic of like one, two or three pargaraphs.
 * Thanks for the references to even more poorly maintenanced niche wiki's but the history of this article 'Virtual dance' is already preserved on Wayback machine. BTW I dont know all the implications of abbreviations like 'TNT at best is warranted'. Does this mean: improvement of the article under this same Head word can start right now with clearing the page? Or does it mean 'one can start a fresh page (possibly under a better name' like 'digital dance' or similar), which looks very generous, but also too obvious to even state it, since thats daily (warranted) business here. I was not sure why it would have to be started by 'another user' could be used by someone else to write a proper article. Is this the case? Is this in the wiki guidelines to kick out previous editors of deleted articles and give them a kind of topic ban? Another question is: Should I stop publishing media about virtual dance (Dance in Second Life) on commons??? Since there will be no more background info on it here. And on another sidenote: on wp:nl we are not that maniacal about sourcing (and making the text in the edit window unreadable). And on another sidenote: The feel-welcome remark was a (displaced) hearts cry on the behavior of user M S structurally entering commons to police and delete any German language image with two or three pixels of protected art, even if the context clearly shows they are provided by the family of the artist, even if everybody else would try to waive these as 'de minimis', or start a dialog. Even if they have been in use as the single available portrait of the artist on commons and in the article for years. Examples of this pseudo professional surveillance and creator 'griefing' mixed in with some spotting of some undoubted Copyvio can be mentioned provided another time. I thought it was important to try not to bite these newbees everytime you get a chance to do so (these single topic 'experts' writing and contributing media about their ancestors, their churches, or the toilets and hallways of their museums). Sorry for expressing those displaced concerns here. Best regards. Peli (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll address your points here. I don't think your concerns are misplaced! But I think it's important to understand why this is happening:
 * The photos are generally fine to continue to be uploaded to Commons because of the copyright rules being really permissive for the game. Even if a picture isn't used on Wikipedia, Commons can still host it. I imagine that if someone made a copyrighted work out of it, they'd delete the photo pretty quickly -- but outside of that you should be good to go. Commons is insanely militant about copyright pieces, so if there's anything protected in it, it will be deleted incredibly quickly.
 * "TNT" means "blow it up and start over." The current article is about a specifically non-notable topic, but as you've mentioned, virtual dance is definitely a notable topic on its own, but this article contains almost nothing that would be currently useful for it. It's so niche and not-notable, that we're arguing that it would be better if this was all gotten rid of and then rebuilt from the ground up using the sources that Why? I Ask proposed. I think that dance in Second Life could theoretically be a sentence or two in a new article, but for the entire article to be about it feels completely undue in focus.
 * There's no topic bans if an article is deleted, but if the article were to be repeatedly be re-created in a similar way, I imagine it could run afoul of issues that arise from ignoring community consensus.
 * Nomader ( talk ) 15:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete how this disaster of an article has managed to survive on Wikipedia since 2010 is beyond me. WP:TNT  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  23:47, 26 March 2023 (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.