Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of Gangnam Style

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 merge to Gangnam Style. This does not preclude merger to another appropriate article. MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Gangnam Style

Effects of Gangnam Style (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

This is a content fork. There is no notable content here that cannot be found in similar article forks. There is already an article about this song. We don't need any more. See

• Merge to
  Talkback) 21:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Gangnam Style North8000 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (without redirect) to Gangnam Style --Cavarrone (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, significant impact of both economic nature, cultural nature, also, noteworthy mass participation worldwide, and significant coverage of this particular aspect in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the pop culture Gangham article. The reader does not deserve these myriad articles. Its just a super popular song, its not the second coming of Christ.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not just because of its significant impact on South Korea but more importantly, the song changed the music industry and this part needs to be expanded -A1candidate (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: and expand! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --Nouniquenames 23:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. There needs to be consensus to either keep or merge.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,

ey 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - Merging it would be foolish. The main article is already
  WP:TOOLONG and its already established the content is suitable for inclusion and thus making it an appropriate sub article. Mkdw^talk 07:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I don't think there is a need for this article - I don't think it is very notable, OK so it had a billion views, and people did a few flashmobs, but in any case I think it is far too early to have an article like this even so. Mikeo34 (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism? FYI the song is almost half a year old. -A1candidate (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but I still think Gangnam Style is very 'current' so to speak. As I already stated though, I just don't think the effects of a song needs its own article - as one of the above stated this is not the second coming of Jesus, it is just a very famous song. Mikeo34 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned earlier the song has had a significant impact on South Korea and it also influenced the music industry. It may be a silly and foolish (albeit famous) song, but its unprecendented popularity has far-ranging effects (Im assuming everyone who voted here has spent a fair amount of time reading the article itself) -A1candidate (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand as the article has importance. Per Mkdw, merging it to Gangnam Style is foolish due to the article size is large.
  talk to me! 11:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge The nom is bang on here. This article is unnecessary. AniMate 22:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge I think this page meets the definition of
  WP:CFORK. Should either be merged or deleted. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Gangnam Style. This page is mostly speculation and commentary. It lacks concrete substance on the effects of the song because the event is still in development. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Effects_of_Gangnam_Style#South_Korea. Obviously you aren't even bothered to read the article...sigh... -A1candidate (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge to Gangnam Style. Even if the effect of the song on the music industry proves considerable in the long run, there's no reason that can't be incorporated into the article about the song until the amount of encyclopedic information about the effect grows too large for the parent page. Circumspect (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that this article has to compete with
    Gangnam Style by country to merge with the main article. -A1candidate (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge to Gangnam Style in popular culture, quite trivial for a standalone article. Brandmeister^talk 16:54, 18 December 2012 (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.