388:
this exactly the kind of thing that
Knowledge (XXG) should be noting for future generations, things that turn out to be important. Would you delete references for the moon landings? Okay, this is not as important, but it's been viewed by more people (admittedly due to the viral nature of modern social media), so who is the nominator to suggest this is not important? —
340:
I started this article and I would like to propose that we keep this article. The nominator states that the event may have received some coverage this is a gross understatement. The 3rd week of July 2009 this was picked up by just about every major news agency in the world. The participants of the
387:
I think what may have been an accidental temporary blip has turned into an international sensation, with a growing number of views under two different videos on YouTube, such that the combined media play, plus views, retweets on twitter etc, has made this something to be remembered. I for one think
349:
to talk about the event and in one instance to recreate it. The article also states that
Dancing With the Stars Australia re-created the event (although it does not show a source for that). I would argue that this is no longer merely a
373:: I don't think it's doing any harm to have it around; the article is above stub level, nicely written, and not original research or promotion. It's too soon to assess whether it is temporary; we can reassess that a year from now. —
166:
303:
410:
160:
127:
266:
421:
applies here; something temporarily entering our minds does not mean it gets an article. Show me some lasting coverage of this phenomenon and I'll change my mind.
94:
89:
98:
81:
483:
478:
397:
181:
462:
148:
17:
442:
85:
413:; if it isn't notable now, the article is deleted, full stop. "it's too soon/it might be notable in six months/whatever" is
142:
528:
498:
430:
401:
377:
363:
329:
292:
256:
232:
63:
209:. It may have received some coverage, but it's hardly significant coverage that deems its inclusion. Knowledge (XXG) is
543:
197:
In a nutshell, the article is about a viral video of family and friends who danced down the wedding aisle to the song "
36:
138:
242:
198:
512:
202:
188:
77:
69:
542:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
393:
56:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
484:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/we-wont-get-boyled-again-sony-chris-brown-monetize-wedding-dance-video/
479:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2108-Love-and-Marriage-Examiner~y2009m8d4-Meeting-marring-and-dancing-down-the-aisle
507:
This video has received a phenomenal amount of press coverage, far more than other covered viral videos like
354:
event but one that is worthy of inclusion due to its world wide coverage and re-creation and notablility.
472:
389:
254:
154:
457:
346:
324:
287:
516:
489:
The above is just a quick seach through google news... The original was uploaded on July 19th 2009
463:
http://www.thedailytell.com/2009/08/jk-wedding-dance-internet-sensation-directs-buzz-toward-charity/
210:
426:
174:
49:
524:
443:
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/99900/Californias_huge_garage_sale_YouTube_shares_the_wealth
374:
227:
508:
452:
447:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
351:
214:
246:
418:
494:
359:
422:
342:
520:
220:
318:
281:
115:
490:
355:
467:
245:" article since because of this video the song's digital sales skyrocketed.
473:
http://www.rantrave.com/Rave/JK-Wedding-Dance-Divorce-Parody-Video.aspx
312:
275:
206:
458:
http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2009/081009-buzz.html?page=2
536:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
453:
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=277935&sc=102
448:
http://www.enewscourier.com/local/local_story_237102710.html
411:
Knowledge (XXG):arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
122:
111:
107:
103:
173:
304:
list of
Popular culture-related deletion discussions
187:
213:and it seems that the notability of this event is
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
546:). No further edits should be made to this page.
267:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
8:
409:. RP459's argument is taken straight out of
298:
261:
205:, which has received millions of views on
468:http://blog.clickz.com/090805-160921.html
302:: This debate has been included in the
265:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
437:as requested, continuing coverage:
24:
519:from 1999, in my estimation. --
475:]] Coverage of parody of dance,
1:
529:05:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
499:02:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
431:00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
402:00:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
378:18:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
364:13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
330:05:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
293:05:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
257:05:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
233:05:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
64:13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
563:
513:Saturday Morning Watchmen
78:JK Wedding Entrance Dance
70:JK Wedding Entrance Dance
539:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
515:. Its about as big as
341:event appeared on both
407:Strong, Strong delete
347:Good Morning America
417:a valid argument.
44:The result was
456:August 10th 2009
451:August 15th 2009
446:August 25th 2009
441:August 26th 2009
332:
328:
307:
295:
291:
270:
211:not a news source
554:
541:
477:August 4th 2009
471:August 4th 2009
466:August 5th 2009
461:August 7th 2009
321:
315:
310:
308:
284:
278:
273:
271:
252:
230:
223:
192:
191:
177:
125:
119:
101:
59:
34:
562:
561:
557:
556:
555:
553:
552:
551:
550:
544:deletion review
537:
482:July 30th 2009
319:
313:
282:
276:
247:
228:
221:
134:
121:
92:
76:
73:
57:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
560:
558:
549:
548:
532:
531:
486:
481:
476:
470:
465:
460:
455:
450:
445:
439:
438:
434:
433:
404:
381:
380:
367:
366:
343:The Today Show
334:
333:
296:
259:
195:
194:
131:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
559:
547:
545:
540:
534:
533:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
487:
485:
480:
474:
469:
464:
459:
454:
449:
444:
436:
435:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
405:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
383:
382:
379:
376:
372:
369:
368:
365:
361:
357:
353:
348:
344:
339:
336:
335:
331:
326:
322:
316:
305:
301:
297:
294:
289:
285:
279:
268:
264:
260:
258:
255:
253:
251:
244:
240:
237:
236:
235:
234:
231:
226:
225:
224:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
129:
124:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
60:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
538:
535:
504:
488:
440:
414:
406:
384:
370:
337:
299:
262:
249:
238:
219:
218:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
54:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
517:Mahir Çağrı
419:WP:NOT#NEWS
203:Chris Brown
161:free images
509:Pancakes!
423:Ironholds
375:Sebastian
352:temporary
215:temporary
521:Milowent
398:contribs
241:in the "
128:View log
250:Legolas
243:Forever
229:xplicit
207:YouTube
199:Forever
167:WP refs
155:scholar
95:protect
90:history
390:Justin
139:Google
123:delete
99:delete
491:RP459
356:RP459
323:) ·
286:) ·
239:Merge
201:" by
182:JSTOR
143:books
126:) – (
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
525:talk
511:and
505:Keep
495:talk
427:talk
394:talk
385:Keep
371:Keep
360:talk
345:and
338:Keep
325:@287
320:talk
300:Note
288:@287
283:talk
263:Note
217:. —
175:FENS
149:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
58:Talk
46:keep
415:not
309:--
272:--
189:TWL
527:)
497:)
429:)
400:)
396:•
362:)
327:·
317:·
314:X!
306:.
290:·
280:·
277:X!
269:.
248:--
169:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
51:NW
48:.
523:(
493:(
425:(
392:(
358:(
311:(
274:(
222:Σ
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
120:(
118:)
80:(
61:)
55:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.