Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crip Walk

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. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crip Walk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Absolutely no claim to notability, and very marginal sourcing. Superm401 - Talk 04:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I tried to work on the sourcing. It's definitely a notable form of movement. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it were notable, it would have non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. There are none. JBsupreme (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Huh? What makes the sources unreliable in that article? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Crips gang and its associated culture are well-documented, but not in reliable academic journals or textbooks. This culture is documented in hip-hop songs, on youtube videos, and so on. But it's at least as notable as some of the rare molecules and classical music pieces we have here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, when I do a Google Scholar search for Crips and gang I come up with a lot of hits to a lot of academic journals including some from ethnography, anthropology, criminal justice, and even psychology. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm aware of that. I should have said something like, "the principle media that are used to document the Crip Walk are mainly non-academic, such as oral tradition, hip hop lyrics, youtube videos and so on." I certainly don't doubt that there are academics out there who would seek to document something like the Crip Walk in academic journals, I'm just saying that we should not view the Crip Walk doctrine in the academic journals as the basis upon which to identify whether the subject is notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - easily notable.[1][2] Spellcast (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Article doesn't even say what it is. Utterly non-notable. Contrived by fringe sociologists. Where's the youtube video? ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a joke vote? Fringe sociologists out of that diploma mill the University of Michigan? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And John Kerry went to Yale. What's your point? There are two problems: 1) the article doesn't explain what the subject is, it just says it's a dance. So it's fatally flawed in my opinion. And 2) sociology is a recreational pursuit of acadmics that shouldn't be encouraged. But I'm going with reason 1) This article could be made encyclopedic, but it's just not any good as it is. So it should be deleted or fixed. That's my reasoning, flawed though it may be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to say this, but there are lots of YouTube videos, and lots of google hits, even in google news if you're willing to look back more than a month. So I'm thinking keep. Mangoe (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I live in Melbourne, Australia, and I know what the Crip Walk is. This has to be notable as an expression of a legitimate subculture. It's just one that is not generally documented in academic journals. This sort of article is what makes wikipedia relevant and useful. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability established the usual way. No reason to take exception to usual practice here. WilyD 12:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know I'm feelin' that shit. No, seriously, this is quite notable as has been stated. Maybe it's surprising that something like this would have sources, but it does. JuJube (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2008 (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.