Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turfing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Turfing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article about a form of dance that is completely unsourced. There are claims of notability but this term is essentially a neologism. See belowTheLetterM (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:DANCE. (Okay, that last one is a link to a Wikiproject. But if it was a criterion for deletion, I'm sure it would fail that as well.) Unschool 05:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a notable dance form associated with the hyphy movement; it is roughly the Oakland equivalent of krump dancing. I have rewritten the article and added half a dozen reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would recommend moving the article to Turf dancing, as this is a more specific name which avoids confusion with other uses of "turfing", such as "medical turfing", "astroturfing", etc. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. User:Baileypalblue has done a much better job than I in coming up with sources. Quite honestly, of the six sources now listed, I can only credit two of them as RS (the San Fran Chronicle and the Washington Post), but that's enough for me (MTV would be good enough, but that's a viewer submission with the same RS status as a Wikipedia article. Unschool 06:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Nomination. Bailey's contributions have improved the article past the points where it could be deleted for. TheLetterM (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2009 (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.