Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emo (slang)

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 was keep. W.marsh 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emo (slang)

Emo (slang) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Delete -article seems to have major problems with it, badly-sourced, referenced, NPOV; the rapid edit history shows there's no clear consensus over what 'emo' is, or says, or does, is it suitable for Wikipedia?? Berk2 13:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I definitely see your point with emo being difficult to define. Elsebroke 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There seem to be a wealth of references to mainstream newspaper articles that confirm that this a real youth subculture. Articles needs improvement (like nearly every Wikipedia article). Slightly Selassie 13:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. An article on emo is certainly appropriate here and this is very from being bad enough to throw overboard. BTLizard 13:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Slightly Selassie. Is "slang" the best description? "Subculture" gets it right. JJL 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sourced article whose independent existence from Emo (music) is justified on the Emo disambig. page. ◄Zahakiel► 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, sourced and notable, of course needs improvement. Carlosguitar 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is adequately sourced, obviously notable, passes in clusion criteria. It may be a candidate for cleanup, but this is not Articles for Cleanup ... Arkyan • (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Extensively referenced, adequate sourcing. Unfortunateyl this will be another vandal magnet. Keep it on your watch list! —Gaff ταλκ 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just needs to be a better article.---Gloriamarie 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know if I could do anything on this article, seeing as it's definitely not an area of expertise for me, but maybe a semi-protection is in order. I will watch it and help remove vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Because it is a vandalism hotspot, maybe it should be more extensively protected. Maybe if enough people watch the article, we can prevent a great deal of NPOV, vandalism, and it could help make a general consensus. J-stan 18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, even the Daily Mail talks about "emos" now, it's just a gash article. Fix up and watch closely. tomasz. 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's still an awful article in a number of ways, but it satisfied WP:N and WP:V. I don't, like, know why people, you know, are so mean. --Dhartung | Talk 20:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It needs serious cleanup but satisfies WP:Not --St.daniel Talk 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Emo is a widespread subculture/slang term and deserves Wikipedia's attention. Elsebroke 02:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Deletion won't really make this article more useful to you, gentle reader . —Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-05-23 08:40Z
  • Keep Very well-known term. The article could be better, for sure. But, deletion? No. Cowicide 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, as per WP:SNOW. --Ashenai 12:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Despairing 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If this deleted you might as well delete punk, teddy boy, mod.... Adambisset 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Improve the article; don't delete it. JonathanFreed 14:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you're gonna delete emo, then what about chav? Punk? Goth? It just needs improvement. Nukleoptra 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - NPOV is not a reason in itself to delete an article. --Philip Laurence 21:20, 23 May 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.