Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacking

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. WjBscribe 22:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacking

Jacking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails notability. Was nominated for CSD as being non-notable via avoid neologims. It was PROD'ed twice with a good faith explanation of the deletion process to give the article's creator time to improve the article to meet notability requirements. This explanation of the process occurred on the article's talkpage on January 28, 2007. Those attempts were rejected out of hand by another user after a detailed explanation. Were Wikipedia to include every fad or item conceived, it would run out of webspace. Wikipedia is not WP:PAPER. Ronbo76 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. First of all, WP:PAPER refers to the idea that we will not run out of webspace. In fact, it specifically says that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content" so on its own that's no reason to delete an article. People donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Wikimedia foundation every time we have a drive, to ensure that we have the hosting capacity we need to keep expanding. Secondly, I don't feel that this falls into "every fad or item conceived", at least any more than other dances mentioned in songs (like the Loco-Motion or the twist). Jacking was a pretty common (if stereotypical) dance style in the late 80s. I know Google hits aren't dependable, but with almost half a million it seems like there must be at least a couple of reliable sources out there. Looks like there are tons of dance sites out there that discuss the style. Kafziel Talk 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Kafziel was the administrator, who rejected the CSD, and removed the second PROD as a user. Ronbo76 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's poorly referenced. From what I can find, it was prominient in Chicago for a while, but never caught on elsewhere. As a local phenomenon, I don't think it's notable enough. -- Mikeblas 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Chicago house" is a musical style, like Delta blues. The name refers to the place of origin, not that it was only popular in that area. Kafziel Talk 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kafziel, even though we run the risk of "running out of webspace"! Clearly the nom doesn't understand what "Wikipedia is not paper" means. Anyway potential references seem to include a book [1].. article just needs some better referencing, not deletion. The references do seem to exist. --W.marsh 18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep [2] satisfies me that it's sourceable and notable enough for me. FrozenPurpleCube 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kafziel. Splintercellguy 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Huh? Claims include "popular in the late 1980s" and "many early house tracks used the word in their titles. Examples include..." What exactly were you expecting? --W.marsh 03:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Morenooso 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? The mere assertion that it fails WP:N doesn't mean much without evidence, especially considering people have already pointed to appropriate sources that seem to meet WP:N. --W.marsh 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:PAPER is not a warning about running out of webspace, it is the opposite in fact - this AFD and all its versions are going to consume more webspace than the subject article on its own, so that's a silly argument. The fact that Kafziel removed a CSD notice (this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion!) and a prod tag is completely irrelevant. And aside from that, this is quite notable: as Mister Manticore has pointed out it is referenced in at least 3 reliable sources. --Canley 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the gentle reader will look at the title of WP:PAPER it includes the word "not". I also included "not" in my preamble making this a double negative. Since WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is taking hits on the talkpage, my intent was that even though Wikipedia is believed not to be unlimited in web content or storage, there will come a level when non-notable articles like this will not be included. Ronbo76 06:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We can worry about that if (and that's a big "if") that time ever comes.
As far as your use of WP:PAPER, at this point I think you should really just say, "oops, sorry," and let it go. "Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not paper" (the supposed double negative you created) doesn't make any sense as a sentence. Even if it was shortened to "Wikipedia is not not paper", that's still nonsense, because Wikipedia is not paper. No amount of doublespeak is going to change that. It simply does not apply here, and the semantic arguments don't help this discussion. Kafziel Talk 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not speak for me. My nomination is clear and a good faith effort. You are aware of this because we discussed this fully on the talkpage. Ronbo76 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not speaking for you. I'm asking you to stop trying to rationalize your misguided use of WP:PAPER. I agree that the nomination was in good faith (well, mostly - if we discount your implication that my input is somehow invalidated by my removal of the prod tag), but the nomination is valid based on your doubts of notability, not WP:PAPER. You misused the policy, we called you on it, and there's no need for you to try to save face by acting like you meant something else. Everyone makes mistakes. At this point, it would be best just to admit your mistake and let it go. That's all I'm saying. Kafziel Talk 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Having danced some house dance at various schools and places I can assert that the jacking technique is often used and referred to. I've also heard the style being called new jack swing, but I'm not sure how it's related to the genre of music with that name. Many newer styles of hip hop dance also make use of jacking, which make it difficult to merge it with the house dance article. - Wintran (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this anything more than a dicdef? Xiner (talk, email) 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's short at the moment, but has the potential to be expanded. It's no more a dicdef than breakdancing or moshing. Kafziel Talk 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a bit of pop culture referenced in music. Ventifax 23:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
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.