Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkour Civilization

Parkour Civilization

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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. 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]

Draft: This article was obviously written by fans of the series, for fans of the series. But I think the article should be drafted rather than deleted, providing a chance for it to be reworked into a more encyclopedic article.—theMainLogan (t•c) 17:45, 21 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]

Delete Fails the general notability guidelines and WP:SUSTAINED. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please take a look at the source assessment table I have created.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/parkour-civilization-minecraft-movie-cinema-1235124169/		Per WP:ROLLINGSTONE.	There is significant coverage about the video itself, and not just talking about it being viral.	✔ Yes
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-buzz/viral-minecraft-film-parkour-civilization-gets-removed-from-letterboxd-fans-outraged-article-113949603	Even though WP:NEWSORGINDIA urges editors to exercise caution, I don't see any reason to believe this is sponsored. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others. These issues do not apply to this article.	WP:NEWSORG per Times Now - no reason to believe a reputable news organization would be unreliable when it comes to reporting on a mostly Western cultural phenomenon.	Despite intermingled with quotes from Twitter, analysis of the plot and its significance is plain significant coverage: hustling culture, societal injustice, and income disparity.	✔ Yes
https://www.dailydot.com/memes/parkour-civilization-meme/		~ I've gone and read the closing comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 390#RFC (The Daily Dot). The main arguments against The Daily Dot's reliability has been on clickbait, [fusing] opinion with factual reporting, its political coverage, which do not apply much to this article, and there is the source is probably reliable for mundane reporting on internet culture. On reading the article I do not find too much bias in the reporting, so this is probably reliable.	~ Hard to salvage, but the sentences from the tale of an oppressed individual and The dramatic tone should be addressing the video directly and in detail as required in WP:SIGCOV.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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 fac that it inspires the "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)[reply]

Which article were you referring to? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:22, 26 October 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]