Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabbage patch dance

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. Not only is the subject easily sourced pre se, the dance is mentioned dozens of times in fictional literature in a Google Book search alone. WP:BEFORE is mandatory. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbage patch dance

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This dance hasn't received coverage from what's considered reliable media. It fails WP:N. The sources cited fail WP:RS. The article's duration isn't a criterion for its existence. Tapered (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Reliable independent sources refer to this dance here and here and here. and here. Not sure why we'd want to erase these moves from the history of urban dance.ABF99 (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Some cultural interpretation of the Cabbage Patch Dance here. also included in an encyclopedia of African-American culture here. ABF99 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources that are reliable a la WP:RS devote more than a short paragraph to this dance. It certainly exists and is mentioned it other articles. None of the sources justify a dedicated article in Wikipedia. Tapered (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the term "significant coverage" in WP:N. Tapered (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ABF99's arguments and sources. Theredproject (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ABF99. In particular, the book Hip Hop Dance: Meanings and Messages is a good, indepht source for this dance. Cavarrone 08:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That book provides verification of the existance of the dance, it does not provide significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete junk sources, no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG fails WP:NMUSIC. --Bejnar (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable sources were found per ABF99 that appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC (Others). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:22, 18 September 2015 (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.