Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto Goth Scene

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 KEEP due to significant improvement. Cúchullain ^t/c 05:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Goth Scene

Toronto Goth Scene (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested speedy deletion. Reads as original research, no compelling evidence to support the assertion that this is materially different from the goth scene elsewhere, but not a speedy candidate. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - have to agree that this reads as original research. Cannot find anything that shows the goth scene has been talked about in the wider world as being significatly different to the Goth scene elsewhere. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per above ChaosAkita 20:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is so earnestly written it has a considerable comedy value, presumably unintended. Delete all the same, though. -- Hoary 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Delete, mainly on OR and POV grounds, though the article and the super-long argument for keeping by the author are enough to make my head spin. Realkyhick 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This looks like a write-up on how to get into the Toronto goth scene rather than actual, encyclopedic documentation on the subject. This doesn't quite sit as something that I'd really think belongs on Wikipedia - even with lots of data. --Dennisthe2 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Given consensus on the discussion below, I'm changing my vote to weak keep - which is actually what I was hoping for. =^_^= The list of clubs and whatnot don't sit well with me, still, as it makes it feel more like a social organization page - but I won't interfere with it. --Dennisthe2 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Epbr123 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Dennithe2 and Epbr123 both make unfair criticisms. I do not believe there are any instructions on how to do anything at all.

This document has no information presented in a how-to do something style.

• • It doesn't matter at the moment about the style of the article. All you need to do is provide a reliable independent source which talks about the Toronto goth scene. Epbr123 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You think I'm being unfair? Change my mind. Make it into something that doesn't appear to have those qualities that I found in the article. I will be frank: if I wanted this kind of information in an encyclopedia, I'd locate it in the Seattle Weekly - which itself is everything except encyclopedic. --Dennisthe2 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Epbr123 and Dennisthe2: originally you stated it reads like a how-to article. I said I did not believe it read like a how-to, but that I would make certain changes. I said it was unfair to characterize it as a how to article because the data was historical information and therefore even if some statements seemed like they were instructiions, those were merely defects in the phrasing and not in the entire article itself. The article has since been ammended and presently you've both come back and seem to have dropped or did not continue the "how-to" criticism.
      • putting aside the new issues, are you now satisfied that the ammendments made to the article addressed the "how-to" issue to your satisfaction?

• • • • Epbr2: you state that all I need to do is provide reliable independent sources which talk about the toronto goth scene. I have provided sources which are both reliable and independant. They are not all independant of the city of toronto itself. The only self published source in the article heads up a ghost research historical society (something distinct but not utterly unrelated to goth), was never a goth himself, and is regular content contributor to a licensed commercial Toronto area radio show on the paranormal, he would not just make up historical facts on the origins of the goth scene. The rest of the sources are taken from third party secondary sources, or toronto mainstream culture reporting. Its fully cited and their statements are verifiable. If their vernacular is informal its because the are culture media. Where claims of reactions from the "goth community" are made, these media sources are making such claims and have indicated who they were getting such reactions from. I'm not putting in rumours or my personal anecdotes. references are provided for everything. And if the reader may object to a specific one, that is not a defect in the ENTIRE article. The facts given are from these sources and the information is presented in chronological sequence as is appropriate for such an article. Even 'OR' sounding claims such as the Ann Rice preponderance in the scene are merely claims as reported in those media sources (and the ann rice connection is repeatedly stated by seperate media). The claim about "fashion victims" was from an interview published by the authors of a published printed book called the Goth Bible, as part of his or her own seperate secondary research. One of his or her interviewees was from toronto. And that is what the interviewee said and I quoted it exactly as said as to show its nature. These are not a self published statements, however but published by a independant researchers. in any event this article contains no original research, even if it may seem to. References are provided.

• • • • Dennisthe2: you said "Make it into something that doesn't appear to have those qualities that I found in the article. " The only issue you raised was that it seems like a "how to". and you talk about not wanting a certain "kind" of information in an encyclopedia. if you are saying the history of major subcultures in a city of 3 million is not worthy of an encyclopedia, then there is nothing I can do to convince you because that is the topic of this article. But this is not a current events article. Its 30 years of history. history doesn't change. It is encyclopedic. If an article on Grunge speak """Grunge speak was a hoax created by Megan Jasper""" is appropriate for wiki, if there is an article on a commin book about the goth scene Johnny the Homicidal Maniac in wiki or on a so called goth/punk clothing store Hot Topic on wiki, what makes an article documenting the history of the transformation of a "freak" subculture tranforming into a specific form of goth subculture which in turn became pop-culture, and finally imploding in the aftermath of columbine over a 30 years period in the 5th largest city in North America inappropriate for wiki? Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia. And I think its unfair to call this a how-to or prohibit this kind of information in this specific case but allow even more trifling information about a hoax of a fake gruge slang or a comic book in wiki. TheDarknessVisible 01:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • But, there are a number of problems. First, the article still reads like...well, a Village Voice Media article about where to go to be part of the local goth culture and what to expect. Second, and much more importantly, the article doesn't tout why it's notable. What's so notable about the Toronto goths? Do they exclusively listen to Closed Caskets For The Living Impaired, right after listening to A Prairie Home Companion? Is there a larger concentration of $religion in this group? You get the idea - but of course, you'll also have to explain why those are significant! Every locality has its goth clubs/raves/cliques/whatever - you go to Los Angeles, Orange County, here in the greater Seattle area, you name it, you'll find it, and as near as I've seen, there is no more notability in each individual scene than in Toronto. So that's going to be the big one. If you can tell me why Toronto goths are more notable than goth at large, I'll compromise on the first pointer and change my !vote. But if you can't do that, then there's no way to hold it against WP's standards and make it stick. Reference here for notability standards, here for verifiability, and here for what are considered to be reliable sources. --Dennisthe2 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - There is a lot of self-research in the article. However, there does seem to be a decent amount of validity in keeping the article if it's overhauled (although I think someone other than TheDarknessVisible should step up to do so; I won't). Toronto is actually known for its goth scene. --Iriseyes 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

After seeing how excellent the article is now, I've changed my vote to strong keep. --Iriseyes 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • hauling in progress. TheDarknessVisible 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I was the editor who originally flagged this a speedy. However, this article has undergone worlds of improvement since being AfD-nominated, and is still in the process of being improved. Dozens of sources are being worked into the article, several relevant pictures have been added, and the situation is really looking up. I urge the closing nom to compare the state of the article before (when some of the above !votes were cast), to the current state. I read through it all, and I might go so far as to say this article is on the verge of B-class. --Czj 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • None of the stated sources on Toronto Goths are independent and reliable. Epbr123 17:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

notability: "A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."

The article does not need to tout why it is notable.

Toronto Star is independant. Eye Weekly is Independant. Now Magazine independant. Montreal Mirror is independant. The Vampire Book is published in MI and hailed by the independant Chicago Tribune as "the most comprehensive collection of vampire lore". Its notable and It is independant. doubledeckerbuses is independant. torontogoth might be the only source that is not independant of the goth scene, but it is cited specifically only to list goth bars.. and it is independant of those. The Gothic Bible is independant.

The Toronto Goth Scene has been the subject of multiple non-trivial or even substantial pubished works. That passes the notability requirement.

As for verifiable: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. "

the links are all there. any wiki reader can follow them and verify them.or go to amazon.com and buy them.

Dennisthe2:"Every locality has its goth clubs/raves/cliques/whatever - you go to Los Angeles, Orange County, here in the greater Seattle area, you name it, you'll find it, and as near as I've seen, there is no more notability in each individual scene than in Toronto. So that's going to be the big one. If you can tell me why Toronto goths are more notable than goth at large, I'll compromise on the first pointer and change my !vote. If you can tell me why Toronto goths are more notable than goth at large"

I believe you have misinterpretted the wiki rules. I don't see a wiki requirement that the subject be must more notable than other subjects. this is not a paper encyclopedia. TheDarknessVisible 01:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Perhaps you don't understand. What I am applying is a combination of rules and precedent. Each region in my explanation has its own goth scene, but each region has nothing particularly unique about it other than geographic center point that makes it notable, and even then, the geographic center point becomes little more than an identifier - a commonality for any subculture. That lack of notability keeps them off of here - and frankly, I have a few goth friends that dismiss claims of regional notability in general. Never said anything bad about Toronto, but that's an aside. (Just that it's a decent place.) Granted, too, that this is something more of a gauge, rather than a hard factor - but gauges can point to what is there. So now you're left with the fact that you now need to have the article tout its own notability - this is not only contrary to your claim above that it doesn't, but is in fact per the guideline found at WP:N. A history of the area's goth culture is great, but again, why is it notable? Hell, furry fandom is on here as notable - not because it has a history, but because of its pervasiveness on the 'net alone. I have a history, but I'm not notable. At any rate, until you can answer that question, my !vote stands. A suggestion: if you need more time, preserve and modify the article in your userspace, and bring it up in deletion review if you can get it up to snuff. --Dennisthe2 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GreenJoe 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dennisthe2: I read the rules on notability (for the 20th time). I'll bring you attention to a few.

""""Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".""""

Also: you've made a big deal of this particular view that you hold "as near as I've seen, there is no more notability in each individual scene than in Toronto. So that's going to be the big one." and also you say "I have a few goth friends that dismiss claims of regional notability in general." and yet:

""""Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc.

General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.""""

You seemingly have conceded that Toronto Goth Scene is actually technically notable according to standard wiki rules. However now you've stated that you believe there is a wiki rule or "precedent" that is a standard wiki policy stating that subcultural topics must go BEYOND the standard wiki rules of notability, but actually must establish they are somehow MORE NOTABLE compared to other things that editors suspect fit in the same catagory.

The issue of a "history section" was merely to justify that this is NOT a "how-to" article, it has no bearing on the argument of notability which deals strictly and objectively with whether or not its been noted in independant publications.

can you please direct me to the wiki page describing this precedent you have referred to so that all the people who are voting are able to assess the comparative notability according to the wiki guidelines, if such a guideline actually exists.

the article actually does provide an independant music journal based out of Montreal (another city, and location of the later dawson college shooting) noting that toronto (which is the 5th most populous city in North America) had the highest concentration of goths anywhere in the WORLD and Toronto may as well be called "gotham city". no one EVER made such a claim for orange county.

But I am not going to argue that toronto is MORE notable than orange county or whatever your "baseline" is, unless there is an official wiki guideline.

on google if I search for "toronto goth" I get 15,900 hits, "orange county goth" gets 9,710 hits. "Seattle goth" gets 3,520 hits. "LA goth" gets 12,200 hits. "Los Angeles Goth" gets 599. "New York Goth" only gets 694. "New York City Goth" gets 3,460, "Chicago Goth" gets 821. "Mexico Goth" gets 670 hits. "San Fransisco Goth" gets 1,240. "Montreal Goth" 306

Perhaps you would like to see that in the actual wiki page, if you think the page is obligated to TOUT its notability.

It seems that more people talk about Toronto Goth than any other place in north america, that I can think of typing into google. of course this, like the opinion of you and your "goth" friends doesn't really matter unless there is in fact a rule about establishing something is MORE notable than another thing.

here is a reference specifically referring to "Vancouver's Goth Culture".. obviously someone distinguishes it from Toronto's goth subculture. ^[1]

Here's a ref specifically saying "Toronto's Goth Culture" ^[2]

there is a notable difference or people would not make note of it. and it is not for wiki editors to subjectively judge these things.

TheDarknessVisible 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Since we can't agree, it would be wise at this time to allow somebody else to make their call. As such, my !vote stands as is, but I'm stepping out of the debate. I have nothing more to say here. --Dennisthe2 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I only asked you to provide the wiki page which discusses the precedent you cited that Toronto Goth Scene must be *more notable* than other scenes. Why would you refuse to disclose that? You and some other 'delete', in fact MOST of you. seem to believe a topic must establish GREATER notability than others, and none will show the wiki policy page.TheDarknessVisible 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Distinction from goth subcultures elsewhere is gradually being backed up by reliable sources. The article is still not near where it should be but it will get there. Look at the diffs to previous versions over the past few days since creation and please acknowledge the genuine efforts made to comply with all policy. Toronto's goth culture may not be any more notable than ones elsewhere, but it is notable by being discussed in various sources (reliability of some is questionable, but I'm looking into it) and works in pop culture. It is not this article's fault that articles for other cities do not exist. At least some of this information is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but a merge into Culture in Toronto would make it excessively long and too heavily focused on one subject, which means it should be split per WP:SUMMARY. –Pomte 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there is no wiki rule requiring "compelling evidence to support the assertion that this is materially different from the goth scene elsewhere". (and the history of no other goth scene whatsoever is actually documented in any detail anywhere on wiki) DennisThe2 can not back up his claims that this is a "how-to article" and has abandonned them, hoary said delete because he found an earlier style of narration humerous.. this is no longer the case. The article is extensively referenced and is not OR (or none remains), but rather a neutral summary of many independant sources reporting on the topic. The article advances no position. Otherwise as per Pomte.TheDarknessVisible 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This has turned into quite an impressively detailed and well referenced article. If only other subcultures were covered this well. - SimonP 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Its a shame none of the references are reliable and independent. Most of them don't even mention the Toronto goth scene. Epbr123 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pardon, the bulk of the information seems to come from Eye Weekly and NOW, which are both prominent news magazines in Toronto and can certainly be considered reliable and independent. - SimonP 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Has anyone outside of Toronto ever written about it? Epbr123 20:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
        • They might not have, but widespread coverage in several local media sources is certainly enough to provide verifiability. - SimonP 00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The answer is yes in fact. several are outside of torontoTheDarknessVisible 08:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Which one's? Epbr123 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Goth Bible, Montreal Mirror, Mardust music and The Vampire Book were all written and published outside toronto. the first 2 from montreal, the next 2 from michigan. goth bible discusses at least 2 goth stores in toronto, how "gothic" fashion was brought from the UK to toronto by Groovella, and includes an interview with a St.Catherines (small city nearby toronto) DJ who discusses bands from toronto and how the lack of local bands has forced local goths to be more involved with what goes on overseas. Also the same author publishes some interview material with toronto goths. mardust has an article about toronto's goth scene called "Rennaisance City", and talks about how in 2003 the scene in Toronto was still hanging on unlike other cities. montreal mirror in 1998 talks about how there are so many goths in toronto and said toronto may as well be called "gotham city" and Mitch Kroll's opinion that toronto goths are shallow and pretentious and in fact are glam more than goth. vampire book talks about groovella and siren, the worlds oldest vampire/goth fashion store (closed since 2005). there are 4 non trivial publications talking specifically about the toronto goth scene, published and written outside of toronto. dont interpret this as me agreeing that newspapers inside Toronto can't be relied upon; they are independant of the goth scene. however you asked. there are also some other sources which talk about it, but their reliability in wiki terms is unknown right now so I am not mentioning them here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDarknessVisible (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 April 2007 (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.