Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkour Civilization

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. Consensus is that the topic has insufficient coverage, or at any rate not sustained coverage, for notability. Sandstein 21:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour Civilization

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Parkour Civilization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an insignificant passing internet meme that, like many others, fails the general notability guidelines. Every source in use here is from a tabloid, borderline unreliable source (save for Rolling Stone) that talks about a brief internet trend rather the series itself. To go into specifics, Daily Dot and Dexerto are tabloids that should be used with caution and cannot demonstrate notability per WP:RSP, IMBD is user-generated content and is unreliable as a result per WP:IMBD, and Times Now is an undiscussed source, but due to WP:NEWSORGINDIA it doesn't look good. And even if these sources were reliable, they are mostly just showcasing social media posts and don't actually hold any critical commentary. The show also fails WP:SUSTAINED, since every source was published in a short time frame, and nothing new has been written about the subject since as found by my WP:BEFORE searches. λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per well argued nom. There appears to be a dearth of WP:INDEPTH WP:RELIABLE sources on the topic of the article (and not a tangentially related meme [which also doesn't pass the bar of WP:N]). Only the Rolling Stone article meets all the criteria that are needed to contribute to WP:GNG, and we can't hang an article on one source. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draft, as the page creator, I agree that it doesn't reach notability guidelines. Mainly due to WP:SUSTAINED like you mentioned. The page itself has brought myself a overload of anxiety due to the fact I thought for sure it was going to get deleted at some point. The Rolling Stone article is the only thing that actually gives anything insightful on the topic, but Wikipedia needs at least two reliable sources that meet the criteria to be considered notable. I am still new to Wikipedia, so I have no idea what the best outcome would be. The subject itself is only ~60% of the way to being considered notable, though, It could be possible it gains another notable source at some point in the future. (no idea if that'd be bringing it back to draft or just appealing it when the time comes)
Please do what you think is best for Wikipedia, but as for now I'd appreciate if it was sent back to draft space or deleted. ^-^ Kaixvny (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, there is no real "criteria" for what makes something notable or not. The notability guidelines only calls for "multiple" reliable sources. So depending on the depth of the sources at hand (multiple pages, academic coverage, etc.), that number could be as low as two, but many people writing about pop-culture topics sourced to news websites generally try and aim for three in-depth sources (though, again, this is not a requirement). But this doesn't really meet that anyways. With that being said, I'm sorry if worrying about if the article would survive or not stressed you out. It's just part of the learning process on Wikipedia that I have faced myself, as have many others. It takes a while to learn and get used to, but in the end it works out. λ NegativeMP1 22:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right! I think i pulled the number two from HELP:AFD in "How to save the article.", I completely agree, and I'm glad this page is finally getting a outcome, it feels much more like breather than anything. As later on during its lifespan, I realized how much I stretched out the sources I had, and the fact it was a ticking time-bomb. Like I said, I still believe it it could eventually reach notability/better coverage in the future but not as of this moment, though could It possibly be shrunken down into a paragraph in List of Internet phenomenas? Honestly, it may still be too un-notable for that but I'm just thinking of other possible outcomes. Kaixvny (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was about nominate this article myself, but forgot about it. I agree with everything NegativeMP1 said. My search on DDG and Google showed up no other usable source besides a questionable source Dexerto. Ca talk to me! 06:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification works too, although I feel like all the coverage are just flash in the pan. Ca talk to me! 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can say, if the only sources are the series itself and IMdB is allowed, then why isn't Battle for Dream Island?. All of these points have been brought up against the series, what's different about that? not to mention on youtube they are of very close subscriber count. Think about that before saying anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyllstru (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaixvny, this isn't the place to discuss the inclusion of BFDI or any other article, but instead for Parkour Civilization, which should be done on Policies and Guidelines. I will note that nobody thus far (even the article's author) have advocated keep, so I don't know where you've got the idea that there is some hypocrisy (may I recommended reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong ping, I am the page creator, replier is @Kyllstru! ^_^ Kaixvny (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. It's my fault for my over-reliance on the WP:REPLYTOOL's pinging tool, without properly checking Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I believe these sources are enough in establishing notability per WP:GNG, and verifiable enough we can write an article on it. WP:NSUSTAINED appears to primarily talk about people and events, and for articles in other topics in general, no explicit words are given that sustained coverage is a requirement, but consideration should still be applied per context. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provide very surface-level commentary on the show. The only third-party fact in the article (that is, not view count, voice actors, release medium, etc) is the fact that it inspired the meme "NO ONE chooses to jump for the beef". Any further coverage seems unlikely since the meme has already in its deathbed, unlike Skibidi Toilet or TADC. Ca talk to me! 12:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC) edited for typo 11:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which article were you referring to? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was referring to the Wikipedia article. The fact that there is a dearth of third-party content in the article creates WP:NPOV concerns, leading to WP:PAGEDECIDE considerations:Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. Ca talk to me! 11:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The article as it currently stands is not a permanent stub and works fine as a standalone article to me. I'm not sure what you mean by third-party content though. The article is about the video series so it would make sense to talk about the video series? It is unclear to me where the NPOV issues are. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is my personal view that if every fact in an article can be sourced to primary sources without any original research, that article would be quite useless. In this case, viewcounts, the creator, plot, and the release date can all be sourced to the YouTube channel without needing any interpretation by secondary sources. Ca talk to me! 15:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I second Ca's comments. This isn't enough and what there is is basically flash-in-the-plan. And I would definitely say SUSTAINED should be taken into account regardless of it being a "requirement" or not. λ NegativeMP1 03:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't told me which sources fail significant coverage and why. The articles I have listed do, in my opinion,[address] the topic directly and in detail. I'm not sure what you mean by taking SUSTAINED into account. I've read sustained multiple times and I am unsure how that can be applied to a deletion discussion. If this passes GNG, then it is presumed notable. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it doesn't pass GNG. You're basically working with one and a half sources, and I'm personally referring to the Times Now article (not sure what Ca is referring to). What is there is very surface level, and it's still mostly just rehashing social media comments. It's the type of source that would be thrown out in most deletion discussions. And the Daily Dot should be disqualified to establish notability due to its faultiness as a source. If another source or two came out then it'd be fine, but right now it's too soon. And applying SUSTAINED to a deletion discussion is very simple: maybe it's a bad sign for whether or not something is actually notable if all of the coverage that exists for a subject was published in the span of a few days, and then never again. λ NegativeMP1 16:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained why Daily Dot should not be completely disqualified, and I'd like to hear more reasoning than just affirmingits faultiness as a source.
As for Times Now, I'm really not sure what you mean bysurface level when the third and fourth paragraph addresses the film directly and in detail. I do agree that the way it is written sounds AI-y and I am less enthusiastic about that.
On the whole, I still believe this passes GNG, even if just on the border line. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a source is marked by WP:RSP as there being absolutely no consensus regarding its reliability in general, then I do not think it should be used to establish notability in a case like this and even your own source assessment table marks it as "partial". And if a source sounds machine-generated, why are you arguing for its usage? And both paragraphs you highlight are literally just plot summary as well as a few dashes of what fans think of the series. There is no actual critical commentary from what the article author themselves thinks beyond "this exists".
And to solidify this further, this article was written by an author who has worked with Sportskeeda, which is an unreliable content farm and this article honestly reminds me of something that would come from Sportskeeda based on how its written (which, as you've said, could very well have been done by AI). So again, I will repeat, this weirdly-worded social media post rehashing page does not contribute to the subjects notability. Take into account the actual contents of these sources. λ NegativeMP1 18:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus does not mean consensus against. It just means that additional considerations apply. And in this case I don't think the additional considerations pose too much concern on how it can be used to establish notability.
That said, even though I believe this passes GNG, I'm not opposed to a closure with WP:TOOSOON. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parkour_Civilization&oldid=1255418186"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkour Civilization, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.