Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkour 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour in popular culture

This is simply a cluttered trivial list. Wikipedia isn't a directory. The sourcing appears to be poor as well, as much of it is links to music videos where parkour is featured. This seems to be yet another "let's move the clutter from the main article, into a never ending new clutter". Being a popular thing for music videos can be explained with a few examples in a paragraph or so, on the main article. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comprehensive list is not necessary. Merge some of the most significant appearances (preferably using reliable sources to determine significance) into the main Parkour article. Powers ^T 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please no, the consensus was to split this section to a new article, and we should not merge back due to issues with article size. Parkour will never be featured with this section, because people will re-add every time a citation in book, film, documentary, video game, etc, if they are missing. And how will you get consensus for what is "most significant appearances" and "insignificant appearances"? No you cannot because that is a lot subjective, what you think is not significant to you will be to another person. There is no way to say that Generation Yamakasi documentary is more significant than Madonna - Jump video. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, two people does not a consensus make. Second of all, the way to deal with persistent additions of inappropriate material is to remove it when it appears, not create a "holding area" where bad edits can go. We determine what's significant the same way we do it throughout the encyclopedia: by appealing to reliable, independent sources. Powers ^T 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, what make a consensus is the power of arguments NOT the number of people. Second, the way to do with your premature and bite view as "inappropriate material" and "bad edits" is to wait someone to fix the edits, warn every user to use independent sources when editing Wikipedia, or remove the original research after failed to find sources. Warning users is not even possible and difficult due to dynamic IPs. Third, it is unacceptable someone who think that Generation Yamakasi a reliable 71 minutes documentary with experienced practitioners of Yamakasi group, thinks that is insignificant due to lack of independent source, this documentary almost did not received any attention of independent and reliable sources, still it is very useful and must be cited. According to your logic this documentary is insignificant compared to Sébastien Foucan chase on Casino Royale (2006 film) and his participation on Madonna - Jump music video, since there is a lot of references for these. Fourth, please do not state issues with featured article criteria and article size, with your "holding area" view of a sourced article. Fifth, we determine what is notable and non-notable using independent sources not what is "significant" and "insignificant". Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my wording was unclear. Let me try to be more clear. You suggested that without this article, people will add every instance of pop-culture references to the main article. We agree that this is undesirable. Unfortunately, creating this article as a place to put "every instance of pop-culture references" is not the way Wikipedia deals with that undesirable issue. The way Wikipedia deals with it is to revert those changes when they occur. Is there a reason that this is not a feasible option? Powers ^T 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a place to put "every instance of pop-culture references", but there is nothing wrong to state, which practitioners and what happened with scenes of parkour in Madonna, Paul Oakenfold and Sugababes music videos. Same goes television references in Top Gear (current format), David Belle's (founder of parkour) rush hour in BBC One; and film references, where there is blatant scenes of parkour. This article obviously needs improvement, but merging does not help.

I explained why removing what you think is "bad edits" is not a good option using Generation Yamakasi documentary. Parkour Journeys and Jump Westminster are other examples, which does not received attention from independent sources.

More ahead, Sugababes, Assassin's Creed, Casino Royale, and Top Gear were unreferenced. According to your logic, they are insignificant and should be reverted or removed, because they were unreferenced, but in a easy search I found references from Fox News and The Guardian. So, no this is not a feasible option. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting words into my mouth. You apparently do not understand what I'm saying, because "according to my logic" such significant references would not be reverted or removed. Look, you're the one who said that without this article, there would be too many references placed into the main article. You said: "people will re-add every time a citation in book, film, documentary, video game, etc, if they are missing" and because of that, the main article will never reach Featured status. What I'm saying, and what others here are saying, is that the solution to that problem is to remove the edits that don't belong, not to create a new article where those edits are allowed. I'm sorry I brought up the term "bad edits", but you're the one who said they don't belong in the main article, not me. Powers ^T 14:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Parkour. Creating a dumping ground for bad edits is a bad idea. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when merging this article to parkour will avoid your biased view of "bad edits"? Merging to parkour does not fix anything of your "dumping ground for bad edits", and this article was originally split from main article. So yours "dumping ground of bad edits" was in the main article. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - If there were bad edits in the parent article, then they should have been removed in the parent article. When merging back, you can boldly trim out the excess. -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you do not need to merge back to remove the excessive references in the current article. Second, I want to know your biased criteria to remove your judgment of "bad edits". If there is something to be fixed they should be done in the current article. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 21:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address the "bad edits". The current article is just a dumping ground of trivia. A few examples is sufficient. Thus trimmed of all the excess (what I referred to as bad edits), one is left with an article that is more appropriately merged back to the parkour parent article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Parkour 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not WP:JUSTAVOTE. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since I do not see a good reason/argument to merge back to main article, I am suggesting to merge with timeline of parkour. It is possible to rewrite and add historical and popular events in chronological order. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a well-organized and well-referenced article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete in popular culture the way to deal with bloated popular culture sections in articles is to prune them, not to split them out into new "articles" entirely comprised of cruft. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.