This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Dance and
Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of
hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article has iffy
notability per the
WP:GNG.
WP:NMUSIC doesn't seem to apply. Current referencing includes a lot of
WP:USERGENERATED content; currently, the best reference would be appear to be #5, (Anderson-2015). Here's find sources, but it generates a lot of false positives:
For example, of the top 50 results linked under "News", none are about J-setting; that's not a good sign. The web search link is almost useless, the "140,000 results" tally
can be ignored and most of it is a torrent of user generated stuff, and much of the rest are false positives. I managed to find some possibly good sources, and added them to Further reading. Most of them seem to apply more to the Prancing Elites than to J-Setting as a main topic, however. "Prancing Elites" appears to be more notable, but it is not the same topic as J-Setting; perhaps the article should be recast as
Prancing Elites, with "J-Setting" altered to a redirect. Of the sources I found, perhaps the one that most supports J-Setting as its own topic, is Kowal-2017 (Oxford Handbook).
Mathglot (
talk)
19:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Broadmoor: Please see
Notability, and attempt to find good sources to add to the article (as I have been doing). Simply asserting that "J-Setting is notable" doesn't make it notable. You have to measure it against the
Notability policy. Also, what do you mean by "if you do accurate and fair research"? Care to expand on that?
Mathglot (
talk)
10:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Mathglot: I'm a college educated man. I read it and your critiques are unfounded. It's notable against all measures. Maybe you should start in the well cited mainstream section of the page. Very few collegiate dancelines have had the impact the Prancing J-Settes have. Also it seems like you're being antagonizing, what evidence you have they are not notable in their own right? Look at their social media following on and so forth as well. All these things are easy researchable so I'm surprised I need to elaborate on anything, especially with you being an editor. Editors are supposed to be skilled researchers.
Broadmoor (
talk)
13:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)reply
There is no such thing, as evidence that something is not notable, except in the failure to find evidence that it is notable. This is why the
WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to add material to an article, or to find that an article is notable. As I said before, simply stating that something is notable, as in "It's notable against all measures." doesn't make it notable. To your credit, between my last message and yours,
you added three references, all to egrove.olemiss.edu; that's a start. Since your last message,
you added four more, although some of them are videos, and I haven't looked to see if those help establish
WP:Notability or not; and I haven't looked at the other two.
Either you didn't notice, or didn't choose to acknowledge, that the strongest effort to demonstrate evidence of
WP:Notability of the topic, is in fact by myself, where I added eight sources in
these three edits, some or all of which are probably reliable and may help establish notability. Many of those sources aren't directly about the topic, but one is (Kowal), and it may be enough. The evaluation of whether an article is Notable or not, is done by evaluating the topic (i.e., the title) against the
General Notability Guideline. It's not about how many sources are, or aren't in the article. Notability has to do with a topic, not with the state of the article. Ultimately, notability is determined by the
consensus of editors, in one form or another (
DR,
Afd,
Rfc, etc.).
Regarding some of your language above, I'll have something to say at your user page; this is not the proper venue for that, since on this page, we should stick to discussing how to improve the article. Thanks,
Mathglot (
talk)
06:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I should add in reply to your comment that " Very few collegiate dancelines have had the impact the Prancing J-Settes have": you may be right about that. If the sources bear that out, as well they might, then that would argue for the
notability of the topic
Prancing J-Settes. That, in fact, is what I suspect may be the case, here, and why I think there probably will end up having to be some kind of
rename, or
split; namely, I think when one looks carefully at the situation, it will turn out that either the topic
Prancing J-Settes or
Prancing Elites is notable, or both of them are, and
J-Setting is not, and will end up being a redirect. But that remains to be seen.
There are several ways to get there: one way is
consensus among editors here through discussion, although given your previous stance, that doesn't seem likely. Another way, is via the
Rfc process, which will draw uninvolved editors to seek their opinion. A third way, is via an
WP:Afd, i.e., a deletion request. That would serve about the same function as an Rfc, since it would draw uninvolved editors. If other editors don't find this discussion, and we can't find some middle ground, then probably it should go to an Rfc.
Mathglot (
talk)
06:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I have multiple degrees in STEM and can't follow the conversation happening. No one has been able to prove the Prancing J-Settes and J-Setting isn't notable and won't be able to. There's a whole section on the page with sources validating why both are notable. I've even added extra from ABC News. What's going on? Am I really dealing with fair and rational editors right now? I feel like this is a clear sabotage attempt.
Broadmoor (
talk)
17:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
No split
As someone close to the Prancing J-Settes and J-Setting culture, there should be no split because they are practically co-dependent. There will be no J-Setting without the Prancing J-Settes and the Prancing J-Settes popularity and evolution wouldn't exist if it wasn't for J-Setting in the LGBT community (and mainstream).
Broadmoor (
talk)
14:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree that these should not be two articles, but not quite for the same reason you do. Please see the move request (forthcoming) about this.
Mathglot (
talk)
19:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Sources
Saw the discussion above, so these are the book sources I quickly see for J setting, I am sure it's incomplete because I did not do a deep dive:
[1] The Methuen Drama Companion to Performance Art (2020)
[2] The Oxford Handbook of Dance and the Popular Screen (2014)
[3] The Oxford Handbook of Critical Improvisation Studies Volume 1 (2016)
[4] The Pedagogy of Queer TV By Ava Laure Parsemain (2019)