Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk Pathetique

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 nomination was KEEP. The evolution of the article and of the debate during the course of the AfD clearly favors the Keep point of view. Herostratus 01:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk Pathetique

A "sub-variant of Punk Rock". The term gets 214 Google hits when excluding Wikipedia and mirror sites like Answers.com. (still, the fourth hit is a Wikipedia mirror...) The official site of Gary Bushell says: "Tongue in cheek, I dubbed them ‘punk pathetique’ along with equally crazy bands like Brighton’s Peter & The Test-Tube Babies and Geordie jesters The Toy Dolls." That doesn't mean the term should have its own Wikipedia article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs) 2006-07-05 16:13:44 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. Punkmorten 15:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I vote for keeping it. It is a legitimate term that was used to describe humourous and raunchy Oi!/punk bands in 1980s Britain. Just because there isn't a lot about the term on the Internet doesn't mean it's not worthy of a Wikipedia article.Spylab 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab
  • If it is a concept that has not gained traction in the world outside of Garry Bushell, its creator, then it is original research, which is prohibited here. Wikipedia does not have the goal of documenting every single person's idiosyncratic inventions and beliefs. New concepts, such as new genres of music, must have demonstrably been accepted by the world at large outside of their creators and proponents. If you wish to demonstrate that the article is not original research, then please cite sources independent of Mr Bushell, explaining what the genre is, and thus demonstrate that this concept has become accepted by the world at large, outside of Mr Bushell. Currently, the article cites no sources at all, note. Uncle G 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If Punk Pathetique had been invented in the mid nineties when zines & the internet were both running simultaneously, it would certainly recieve the apparently important google hits. However, it was invented in 1981 & didn't catch on. It however, did exist. There is the quote there from Max Splodge about it. There was a definite English Music Hall Comedy Dickensian Punk thing going on. It clearly begins with Johnny Rotten. The band Tenpole Tudor fits into this as well. As far as the whole thing about it being accepted by the world at large, many genres of Punk can be deleted for this reason, & i'm sure Punk could be deleted as well, based on similar ideas. Sean P. Aaberg 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, the concept of a musical genre and culture known as punk has gained widespread acceptance in the world at large, as the references and further reading in that article demonstrate. I didn't ask for "Google hits". I didn't mention Google at all. I asked for cited sources. I ask again for cited sources. The very problem with this article is that the concept invented by Mr Bushell (in your very words) "didn't catch on". Please read our Wikipedia:No original research policy. They way to demonstrate that it is not original research is to cite sources, not to argue a completely unrelated point about Google. Please cite sources. Uncle G 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Google results, WP:NOR and WP:N. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• This is the Wikipedia definition of original research: "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."

  Whatever your views are against the Punk Pathetique article, the "original research" argument doesn't hold water at all. The concept of Punk Pathetique is neither new nor unpublished. It originated in the 1980s, and I've seen the term used in books, articles and record sleeves. The term was mostly used in Britain, but I didn't think a term had to be used worldwide (or more to the point, in the USA) to be worthy of a Wikipedia article.Spylab 19:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab

  • Again, please cite sources. Punkmorten 20:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Funny punk. Punk pathetique has always been obscure as hell, but more so since the mid-1980s, so it isn't likely to be found on the Internet. The reason why it's so rare is because the term "funny punk" replaced it twenty or so years ago. The general idea caught on under that name, so by the time the Internet rolled around in the 1990s, people were calling it funny punk. Funny punk is still a very obscure term, but I can find some citations for it, like this one. Ecto 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but a tripod member page isn't considered a valid source. Punkmorten 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, it's an article written by Donny the Punk, not the person who made that page. Didn't notice that, eh? Ecto 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Punk Pathetique hasn't been replaced, it just isn't popular. Funny Punk exists as well, but it was never so defined as Punk Pathetique. Funny Punk includes bands like AOD & the Descendents yeah? That's the American hardcore version of the same thing. Black Flag could even be part of that at times, the Circle Jerks definitely. Anyhow, Punk Pathetique is real, & doesn't deserve deletion. Sean P. Aaberg
  • Source citations, to prove your claim that this is not original research, have been requested four times now. Please cite sources. You have still not demonstrated that this concept has been accepted by the world at large outside of Mr Bushell. Uncle G 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize that there was still a split between American funny punk and British punk pathetique. I stand corrected. I suppose we should start a funny punk article and leave the punk pathetique article as is. Ecto 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WesleyDodds 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP! I give you an external citation. There you have it. Sean P. Aaberg
• Delete. Still unsourced. And if your touchstone of Punk/Music Hall crossover is Tenpole Tudor and not Ian Dury, you almost certainly don't know what you're talking about. -- GWO
• Great conversational attack there, Ian Dury is an obvious progenitor, but at that point he was old news. Things were moving a mile a minute at that point in terms of music scene factionalism. Oi! bands thought Sham was old news already when they were coming about. It was like one year before them or so. Anyhow. Sean P. Aaberg
• From All Music Guide's review of Splodgenessabounds: "...music historians find their attention drawn to "We're Pathetique," Splodge's rallying call for a musical genre which precious few people even remember today. But the Punk Pathetique movement spawned not only Splodge, but also such joys as the Toy Dolls and Peter & the Test Tube Babies, and is still has an impact today." -- Dave Thompson, All Music Guide. Could somebody please include this little nugget as a reference? I can't access All Music Guide from this computer, so I can't give the address, but somebody could look it up. Ecto 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have to say, I know for a fact this sub-genre existed. It was a UK-only phenomenon, so merging with something else like Funny Punk would be meaningless - that's an even more obscure term IMO than Pathetique. I think the article is waaaay off the mark mentioning Tenpole Tudor, and would be interested to know what they're doing there, but the rest of the material is correct. --DaveG12345 05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment An old Splodgenessabounds album I owned (the self-titled one) featured a crowd holding placards on the back, and one of them said "Vive La Pathetique". This wasn't just something Bushell said once and that was it, though he's one for taking credit for things in that way. --DaveG12345 05:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Added a further citation to the article. --DaveG12345 06:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, I added some more citations (including the ones noted above) and reshuffled it a bit. Feel free to change it around folks, but I hope this shows it's not a made up sub-genre, and that the stubby article can be allowed to expand naturally from now on. I may add some other quotes if I get the chance later. --DaveG12345 06:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• There are definitely enough references now to dismiss calls to delete this article, although now the article needs to be cleaned up a bit to make it flow better.Spylab 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab
  • Good work. :-) --DaveG12345 15:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• After much prodding, we finally have some source citations. Checking out those that I can, they do indeed show that this was a genre of music that was recognized by more than just Mr Bushell. Keep. Uncle G 19:51, 7 July 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.