Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floating, gliding and sliding
- 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 fishhead64 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Floating, gliding and sliding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Apparent neologism, not even given verbatim in the one source. Aaronbrick 00:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that I am a huge breakdance fan and would not object in the least to the few sentences of real content here going into another article. Aaronbrick 00:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I created this article some year back with pretty much all of the content. The information is based on the video titled MR WIGGLES SESSIONS #2 FLOATING and GLIDING available at http://www.mrwiggles.biz/wiggles_videos.htm. I chose not to cite the video as a source as I dislike citing books and videos that other people don't have access to, and was planning to find more web-based resources to cite and expand the article with, but haven't had time.
- What did you have in mind more specifically? Do you want the unsourced material deleted or cited, or do you want the article merged with another article? If you don't think the subject in question deserves an article of its own then this is a bigger discussion involving other more specific dance-related articles such as those listed at Popping (dance) and List of breakdance moves. - Wintran (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only a handful of Google hits. Article doesn't really tell you anything you can't figure out from the term itself. - BierHerr 02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A "handful of Google hits"? "+gliding +popping +dance" gives 82,500 hits, and that's a pretty specific search. That the article is currently short is not a valid argument for deletion. I don't mind renaming or merging it with popping at all, my point is that I'd like a bigger discussion involving the rest of the more specific dance related articles on Wikipedia, many of them less notable than this one, otherwise the deletion of this article solves nothing. - Wintran (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant search is for the phrase "Floating, gliding and sliding" - and there are barely any mentions outside this article and one amateur youtube video. Again, the concepts in the article may be independently noteworthy, but not in this arbitrary triad. Aaronbrick 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clearing that up, the current name of the article is indeed problematic as it groups three terms together. The problem is that many street dancers of today simply refer to the whole footwork concept of moving around weightlessly as either floating, gliding or sliding (especially the latter two), making the terms synonymous. The only clear definition of what these terms mean comes from authorities such as Mr. Wiggles, and he distinguishes them from each other while still considering them closely related (e.g. gliding being based on floating). Unfortunately, he doesn't coin an umbrella term.
I propose two solutions:
1) Rename the article to either floating (dance), gliding (dance) or sliding (dance).
2) Split the article into three articles: floating (dance), gliding (dance) and sliding (dance).
The third option would be to merge the whole content into the popping (dance), but I still believe this requires a broader discussion on notability involving other similar articles.
My vote is currently on renaming the article to gliding (dance), with redirects from the other specific terms.
- Wintran (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clearing that up, the current name of the article is indeed problematic as it groups three terms together. The problem is that many street dancers of today simply refer to the whole footwork concept of moving around weightlessly as either floating, gliding or sliding (especially the latter two), making the terms synonymous. The only clear definition of what these terms mean comes from authorities such as Mr. Wiggles, and he distinguishes them from each other while still considering them closely related (e.g. gliding being based on floating). Unfortunately, he doesn't coin an umbrella term.
- Delete as failing WP:NEO. Nice try. Googling the actual phrase minus Wiki mirrors, and you get thirteen hits, which downright is off the radar and into the sand [1]. What deletion of this article "solves" is removing an unsourced neologism from the encyclopedia. RGTraynor 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting also means deleting the article's content, indirectly rendering it as invalid. If the criticism is towards the article's title then alternatives to deletion should be thoroughly discussed before deleting its full content. - Wintran (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why, yes, it does. If the creator or anyone else wants to take any of the concepts presented in the article and write them into any other dance article, that's his or her lookout, and no doubt those knowledgeable in such articles have a better chance to gauge the notability of the concepts themselves. RGTraynor 16:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you but still believe this is an important point to keep in mind during AfD:s, especially for administrators. After deletion the content of the article is unreachable to the general public and cannot be used for other articles. - Wintran (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't see what potential there is for the article beyond saying "Floating is where you dance like you are floating. Sliding is where you dance like you are sliding" and so on... - BierHerr 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The potential lies in more in-depth descriptions of the concept of gliding (as an umbrella term), the many variations, origins, notable practitioners, and descriptions of more specific moves (circleglide, sideglide, forwardslide, backslide/moonwalk etc). The moonwalk has its own article but is just one move within this style. - Wintran (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't see what potential there is for the article beyond saying "Floating is where you dance like you are floating. Sliding is where you dance like you are sliding" and so on... - BierHerr 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you but still believe this is an important point to keep in mind during AfD:s, especially for administrators. After deletion the content of the article is unreachable to the general public and cannot be used for other articles. - Wintran (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why, yes, it does. If the creator or anyone else wants to take any of the concepts presented in the article and write them into any other dance article, that's his or her lookout, and no doubt those knowledgeable in such articles have a better chance to gauge the notability of the concepts themselves. RGTraynor 16:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting also means deleting the article's content, indirectly rendering it as invalid. If the criticism is towards the article's title then alternatives to deletion should be thoroughly discussed before deleting its full content. - Wintran (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant search is for the phrase "Floating, gliding and sliding" - and there are barely any mentions outside this article and one amateur youtube video. Again, the concepts in the article may be independently noteworthy, but not in this arbitrary triad. Aaronbrick 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A "handful of Google hits"? "+gliding +popping +dance" gives 82,500 hits, and that's a pretty specific search. That the article is currently short is not a valid argument for deletion. I don't mind renaming or merging it with popping at all, my point is that I'd like a bigger discussion involving the rest of the more specific dance related articles on Wikipedia, many of them less notable than this one, otherwise the deletion of this article solves nothing. - Wintran (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename or split as proposed in above discussions. Arguments for deletion are based on the current article title and its grouping of terms and does not render the content non-notable or the individual terms neologistic. - Wintran (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do find the content not notable. I still say Delete. At best, merge it into one sentence in another dance article, but in no way do I see this worthy of it's own wiki article. - BierHerr 19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds do you find it not notable? Because it's too specific for a dance article and not known enough to the general public? Then what do you feel about for example waving (dance), strobing (dance), swipe (breakdance move) and swingout? These are quite specific dance-related articles as well and their notability could definitly be challenged. If the subject in question is not notable enough to warrant its own article then we also need to do something about those. I'm very interested in finding a broader policy on this, having worked a lot on street dance-related articles. - Wintran (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why I find this specific article notable: Popping is an internationally practiced street dance style, appearing in music videos and international street dance festivals such as Juste Debout. The concept of floating, gliding and sliding (generally known as just gliding or sliding) is one of the most common techniques and style used within popping. There are much lesser known substyles to popping, such as animation, that I don't believe are notable enough for their own article. I would also not consider creating articles for specific moves such as the circleglide or the forwardslide. The backslide (or moonwalk) is an exception considering its media exposure through Michael Jackson. - Wintran (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do find the content not notable. I still say Delete. At best, merge it into one sentence in another dance article, but in no way do I see this worthy of it's own wiki article. - BierHerr 19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel the content on Floating, gliding and sliding should ideally become filler material for the relatively short article street dance, as that seems to be where it is most relevant. I just don't see the need for a separate stub article... So my final opinion is Merge to street dance and Delete. Regards, BierHerr 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vapid and hardly any refs. NN. NBeale 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice: If this article is deleted without further discussion I will attempt to create gliding (dance) with most of this article's content. I will also, in either case, attempt to start a discussion at how Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance on how to deal with lesser dance-related articles, hoping to reach a more global consensus there. - Wintran (talk) 12:48, 23 April 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.