Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goth slang (2nd nomination)

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 delete, just barely, as unverifable original research. —Cleared as filed. 05:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goth slang

Previously nominated for deletion several months ago as unsourced POV original research (result: no consensus). Since then, it has been tagged for cleanup, it has been tagged as unsourced, and it has been tagged as POV, and it is still unsourced POV original research. The list is unverified because the terms are unverifiable, and it can probably never be made to conform to NPOV. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I cannot find most of the words in the sources listed. Some are mentioned in only a post or two and seem non notable neologisms even to the goth community. I can't think of a way to make this page encyclopedic unless a better source is suggested.Obina 00:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Obina -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 10:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This page has already been put up for deletion and voted to be kept. That vote should be recognised.I am a goth, and I've heard many of these terms. Apart from that, its an important resource for those studying subcultures...and wether its tidied up or not, is valid information to users of the internet. Why people would destroy information is beyond me...it goes against the whole ethos of Wikipedia!!! Shame on you!Deathlibrarian
  • Note: this user's only contributions have been to this article and its two AfDs --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 17:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep... I was wavering towards deletion as the article had not improved much since its first AfD nom. Deathlibrarian has done a lot of work on the article, in particularly recently noting sources. I find the article quite interesting, but I think it still needs work to make it encyclopedic, NPOV, spelling, etc., something I'd be willing to help on if it makes it through AfD2. I think it does need serious pruning to remove some of the more obscure, regional and unsourced terms. (Pssst, DL, don't say "per nom", it means you agree with the user nominating the article for deletion!). --Canley 14:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Given time, this will become encyclopaedic. Keep up the pressure for quality editing and additional references, though. — JEREMY 11:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A slang dictionary, poorly written, and can never be anything other than a subjective list. Unencyclopedic and silly. Skittle 20:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would add that the information concerning the subculture doesn't need to be deleted. The major terms, and the accompanying trends and patterns, can be recorded in the article goth. There is no need for a page that will tell you 'Dev: A goth pub in London' in an encyclopedia. I'm sure this information is easily available elsewhere on the internet.Skittle 20:33, 14 January 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.