Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Punk (2nd nomination)
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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conservative Punk
What's said in this article amounts to the equivalent of saying there is a "Punk Voter" subculture of punk or something, which is absurd. It's a website, sure, that talks about a political category laid over a social one (people who are both conservative and punk), but the two have no special meaning in conjunction. I could say Libertarian punk, Republican punk, Constitutionalist punk, Democrat punk, but none of these have special meaning (unlike, say, anarcho-punk, which is a particular social subgroup and would merit discussion as such). The article reads like a debate (or at least one side of it), and isn't linked to any social movement except that tied to the website, which was just a reactionary jab at Punk Voter anyway. Not to mention (like I've said), I see the article as something full of broad (and generally incorrect or meaningless) generalizations, mixed with unencyclopedic and non-NPOV claims. I would say just change it to be an article about the website, but that (judging by the previous discussion) there's a consensus that it's worth having an article at all. 149.43.x.x 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep maybe Conservative Punks don't match your idealistic image of a Punk, that doesn't change the fact that they exist. --Boborok 02:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't appreciate you throwing it back at me like that. I never said anybody has to meet any "idealistic image." I can't tell you how to vote (here or anywhere else), but why don't you address the issues at hand? Please don't throw back comments that seem to do nothing but incense this discussion; nobody's here to debate what punks are and aren't allowed to do. If someone put up an article called "Liberal Punks," I'd nominate it for deletion just as quickly. 149.43.x.x 03:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, term gets roughly 70k google hits, along with mentions in the Guardian UK, NYT and MSNBC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Google hits aren't the only measure of relevance or encyclopedic merit. I never contested the fact that this website exists or that it's newsworthy. I'm pointing out that it doesn't constitute in any way a subculture or social movement, as the article claims; it's just a website, a group of people who read it, and the ensuing media attention. Read the article - it's totally non-NPOV and makes sweeping generalizations, and seems to be mostly original research or stuff cut straight from the website. How would you address my statement that nothing here makes it encyclopedic unless we want an entry about this website? (I have no problem with that, but in the last AfD nomination, those in favor only argued that this was only encyclopedic because it was some sort of social movement/subculture, and would not be encyclopedic otherwise. If we do want an article about the actual website though, it needs to be redone almost entirely.) 149.43.x.x 03:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- So clean the article up so we can have the article about the notable website and the notable movement. The media mentions more than cover it, there's plenty of reliable sources to work off of. Cleanup isn't a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Google hits aren't the only measure of relevance or encyclopedic merit. I never contested the fact that this website exists or that it's newsworthy. I'm pointing out that it doesn't constitute in any way a subculture or social movement, as the article claims; it's just a website, a group of people who read it, and the ensuing media attention. Read the article - it's totally non-NPOV and makes sweeping generalizations, and seems to be mostly original research or stuff cut straight from the website. How would you address my statement that nothing here makes it encyclopedic unless we want an entry about this website? (I have no problem with that, but in the last AfD nomination, those in favor only argued that this was only encyclopedic because it was some sort of social movement/subculture, and would not be encyclopedic otherwise. If we do want an article about the actual website though, it needs to be redone almost entirely.) 149.43.x.x 03:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; also comes across as original research. Catamorphism 02:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The nom seems to have an issue with the concept, not as much the article, which could certainly use some cleanup. Are you saying you're in favor of deleting based on concepts? Do media mentions mean nothing to you at all? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know what "deleting based on concepts" means, but the concept of a "conservative punk" seems dubious. A lot of things are mentioned in the media; that doesn't establish notability. If there's a conservative punk manifesto published in book form, or a political party or officially incorporated organization that advocates "conservative punk" views, those would be some of the things that might establish notability. As it is, it sounds like just one of the many labels adopted by people who wank about politics on the Internet that have little relationship to any real-life political movement. Catamorphism 02:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. Verifability is typically the way to go on these, and this concept easily meets that standard. Different strokes, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The news articles you cited above all center around Nick Rizzuto and his web site, and journalists aren't immune from the mistake of confusing a single web site with a significant political movement. I'm still skeptical as to whether "conservative punks" exist as a political movement beyond this one web site. Verifiability would mean verifying that they do, and that hasn't been demonstrated. Catamorphism 03:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- And they also discuss the concept. Your skepticism should be quelled by the Guardian article at least, but whatever works for you. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is debating the fact that someone could, in theory, be conservative and punk. No one is denying the fact that this has been mentioned in the news, no doubt much moreso since this website launched. But the fact remains that this doesn't necessarily lend legitimacy to this as a social movement, and certainly not as a subculture of punk. Like I said, I'd nominate for deletion "Liberal Punk" just as quickly, even though liberal punks are apparently omnipresent - because "Liberal Punk" isn't a term that means anything much more than the two words that make it up, and we've got articles for both of those words already.149.43.x.x 03:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The reliable sources disagree with you. And if there were similar sources and coverage for "liberal punk," I'd oppose you the same way. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Show me where a reliable source explains, in socio-cultural terms, how Conservative Punk is anything more than a group of punks who are conservative. Look at Punk Voter - can we expand that to be a page long diatribe about how the Punk Voter subculture of punk is a rallying point for all liberal punks, and then enumerate some stereotypical set of liberal/punk beliefs? There's no such evidence my hypothetical case or in this situation, and thus "Conservative Punk" is in no way a subculture of punk. The only reason the phrase "Conservative Punk" gets so much press is because it's the name of the site! If Punk Voter were called Liberal Punk, you would be flat out wrong. In addition, show me where this "movement" actually connects conservative punks with the Conservative Punk website, and not the other way around. That is, if this is some social movement, you'll have to demonstrate that the website sprung from it, and not vice-versa. As I see it, there's no evidence for that, and so this amounts to nothing more than a website started by some punks to do their own thing. And that's fine, and it may merit an article as such, but there's absolutely no evidence to support the claims of nearly all of what's in this article right now. 149.43.x.x 03:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The reliable sources disagree with you. And if there were similar sources and coverage for "liberal punk," I'd oppose you the same way. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is debating the fact that someone could, in theory, be conservative and punk. No one is denying the fact that this has been mentioned in the news, no doubt much moreso since this website launched. But the fact remains that this doesn't necessarily lend legitimacy to this as a social movement, and certainly not as a subculture of punk. Like I said, I'd nominate for deletion "Liberal Punk" just as quickly, even though liberal punks are apparently omnipresent - because "Liberal Punk" isn't a term that means anything much more than the two words that make it up, and we've got articles for both of those words already.149.43.x.x 03:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- And they also discuss the concept. Your skepticism should be quelled by the Guardian article at least, but whatever works for you. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The news articles you cited above all center around Nick Rizzuto and his web site, and journalists aren't immune from the mistake of confusing a single web site with a significant political movement. I'm still skeptical as to whether "conservative punks" exist as a political movement beyond this one web site. Verifiability would mean verifying that they do, and that hasn't been demonstrated. Catamorphism 03:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. Verifability is typically the way to go on these, and this concept easily meets that standard. Different strokes, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know what "deleting based on concepts" means, but the concept of a "conservative punk" seems dubious. A lot of things are mentioned in the media; that doesn't establish notability. If there's a conservative punk manifesto published in book form, or a political party or officially incorporated organization that advocates "conservative punk" views, those would be some of the things that might establish notability. As it is, it sounds like just one of the many labels adopted by people who wank about politics on the Internet that have little relationship to any real-life political movement. Catamorphism 02:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The nom seems to have an issue with the concept, not as much the article, which could certainly use some cleanup. Are you saying you're in favor of deleting based on concepts? Do media mentions mean nothing to you at all? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Suggestion: If we're going to keep talking past each other, perhaps you'd like me to do a re-write of the article, taking out everything that's unsubstantiated, original research, or whatever. I'm sure that's a reasonable alternative to deletion (except that many suggested an article like that wasn't worth having - but that's not the issue at hand), if you insist that this website itself has encyclopedic merit.149.43.x.x 04:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Maybe the concept and the site are intertwined. My take, reading the Guardian and MSNBC pieces, is no. If you disagree, so what? If the article needs cleanup, then clean it up. A POV dispute that you seem to have about the concept isn't something you take to AfD. A rewrite is certainly worthwhile for a notable article and concept such as this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Comment - I've rewritten this based on some basic sources and for NPOV. I welcome anyone else to add to it further. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I really appreciate your effort here. I certainly think we're at least stemming off the problems. It seems that the consensus now is to keep this, because it's a notable site - which is odd since last time it was up for deletion, people said it was decidedly not not worth keeping in that respect. Regardless, I'll try to clean up the language to be more accurate in a socio-cultural context, since there is no hard evidence in that direction. I'm surprised so many people want to keep it as an article about the website, but if that's what this article becomes, then that seems reasonable - I just assumed that the sentiment opposing a artcile like that from the last AfD discussion would have carried over. Thanks though, I appreciate the input.149.43.x.x 20:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable webpage. Arbusto 07:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per badlydrawnjeff. Davewild 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Between the Thatcher comment it really states no true facts, merely opinions that can't be attributed to an entire world wide scene. 213.93.113.254 13:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm seeing any sign that this is an article about a true, verifiable movement, rather than an article about one guy's website surrounded by a bunch of weasel-worded original research to give it a veneer of respectability. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Perhaps the article could be moved to Conservatism in punk so it would be clear that the topic is not so much about a defined movement within punk as much as the (surprising) conservatism of some members of the subculture, including several very notable punk musicians. The role of conservatism in punk in an interesting topic, if only for morbid curiosity’s sake. Ecto 01:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifiable/original research/etc. Stifle 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- ...but it is verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 11:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. — Mar. 30, '06 [08:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Comment, an article in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette today has an article: "Rocker mixes music, message: Michale Graves talks up ‘conservative punk’". It turns out he ended up talking about being a conservative punk on The Daily Show [1] as well. They weren't all that kind, but hey. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:29, 30 March 2006 (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.
