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, with valid arguments being made on both sides of the issue as to how WP policies and guidelines apply. Please note: WP:FIVE is summary, not a guideline or policy page. If you're going to quote policy/guidelines, quote the actual page. Also keep in mind WP:TRIVIA which states "What makes a section "trivia", regardless of its name, is that it contains a disorganized and unselective list. A selectively-populated list with a narrow theme is not trivia, and can be the best way to present some information -- for example, a list of unobvious pop-culture references made by a television episode." AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capoeira in popular culture

[edit]

Uncited laundry list of brief appearances. Unacceptable trivia collection per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This handwaving does not constitute a valid reason for deletion under Wikipedia's deletion policy. Digwuren 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I definitely don't approve of simply throwing around WP:FIVE, as if that actually made sense in this situation. However, this is just a loose collection of non-notable, unsourced trivia bits. It's a wholly unnecessary article. Wow, Charlize Theron studied capoeira for a film... so? Delete. -- Kicking222 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. The things on this list have nothing in common past some reference or display of a capoeira move of greater or lesser triviality. Tells us nothing about the martial art, nothing about the items from which the references are drawn, establishes no relationship between the listed items and says nothing about the world around us. Otto4711 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject and content of the article is non-notable. CaveatLector^Talk 22:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand WP:POINT. I think these articles should be deleted, and I am nominating them for deletion. What point am I making? Further, while it not be immediately obvious, I'm not nominating all popular culture articles for deletion, just those that consist of long lists of barely-related trivial mentions. Articles that have merit have the extraneous parts removed. Only those that are entirely trivia get nominated. --Eyrian 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated stuff which says nothing about the importance of capoeria. Crazysuit 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There's only one article, I think, but it's good enough that it's worth keeping several times. I can't see merging this back into Capoeira; in all honesty, I had never heard of this Brazilian martial art, but it's apparently inspired enough of a variation on kung fu, karate, ninja, etc. films to be influential. Mandsford 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the signifcance of Capoeira is as described per Mandsford, it ought be included at Capoeira; there is no sources that show that Capoeira's role in popular culture is notable. So some people learned about it, ate it up, and it shows up places, yadda yadda yadda. Much the same could be said about ice cream, apples, or tacos. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another random collection of factoids, with not even a breath of a hint of sources. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above arguments for deletion quote general policy, but do not show much knowledge of the particular article; the above keep arguments seem based both on policy and the article. The key policy is that WP is an encyclopedia, a general encyclopedia, that includes information about popular culture. This article contains information, and just needs a little sourcing. Most of it should be sourcable, and the rest can be of course deleted. This should never have come here--it is just an editing question.DGG (talk) 20:06, 7 August 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.