Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High school subcultures

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. I highly encourage any of those voting "keep" to please clean this article up. howcheng {chat} 21:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High school subcultures

Long and not poorly written in general, but contains 100% original research and a bunch of rants against different social groups. Definitely not encyclopedic. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep While the article in question does need more attention to context and grammar, it does illustrate the myriad of cultures that exist in a typical High School. As a former student, I recognize most, if not all, groups that are described in said article. The subcultures also need to be expanded. I motion for improvement.

• Keep. Has a chance to become a good article if tagged for "Higher standards of quality", NPOV, etc. Needs time to develop, and might blossom into a good article. Dnavarro 17:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Very new user [1]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:38, Dec. 24, 2005
• Delete as original research. This article will either a) stagnate or b) grow relentlessly with everybody's local term for a group of different kids. I was even tempted myself to add in some terms I'm familiar with, but don't see, but I realize that's not what an encyclopedia is for (UseNet is good for that). Given that this article was made "11 April 2004" and currently has no sources for any of the terms/statements, I see little hope for it to "blossom". Also, I don't consider the typical book/article on high school subcultures to be a realiable source. The only utility I see in this article, is the identification of all the slang dicdefs in need of AFD nomination. --Rob 18:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Dnavarro's comments. Endomion 18:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; It needs citations, and it needs to be linked in with Subculture, Adolescence, and probably others. It's just too interesting for me to vote for deletion. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely Keep for high school subcultures are something that is very real, and I say that as a high school student myself. NIRVANA2764
• Delete per Rob (Thivierr) above. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:38, Dec. 24, 2005
• Comment: Could people saying "keep and add sources" please cite some sources to add. Let's see what you're talking about. Consider looking for the sources *before* you vote to keep. Note, I already tried getting sources for this topic in another article, Secondary education in the United States. I couldn't find any *reliable* sources, nobody else found any (or even replied), so I just removed the comparable subsection weeks ago. Nobody has come up with anything. Why? There aren't *reliable* sources for this. --Rob 18:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not a sociologist, so maybe some of these are inapplicable, but the term does seem to be in use in academic work. Certainly some of the material in the article is uncited. Whatever can't be substantiated should be removed; But the article itself seems to describe a legitimate chunk of human knowledge. [2][3][4][5][6] Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. The subject is vital. -- JJay 20:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is vital as an insight into high school life. -- Zazou 21:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: What "insight" does this article have, that's not in the typical stereotypical TV show or movie about high school life? I think if anybody thinks this article provides insight into *real* high school life, then sadly, this article has already done harm. --Rob 21:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Very late reply: Why need it necessarily provide an insight into a real high school life? You hit on the point there, "in the typical sterotypical ..."; if nothing else, this article could be adapted to list stereotyped groups in High Schools. I certainly don't believe that it's unbiased; I know my school doesn't have such clearly divided groups as the article implies, but I think the article has potential to be adapted to either role. — Zazou 12:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Tom Harrison. --Petros471 22:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Dnavarro and others. Very noteworthy and verifiable! Blackcats 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to High school subculture stereotypes or something of that ilk. Bahn Mi 22:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's a good start on a valid topic. -- MisterHand 23:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously a valid topic. If we don't think wikipedia can cover this sort of thing, what are we doing here? CalJW 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Unreferenced original research (I use the term "research" lightly: it's really a list of pop HS stereotypes). --Daveb 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Dbchip 05:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ichabod 13:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Rob and Daveb. Interesting but unencyclopedic. CalJW, what sort of thing is "this sort of thing"? (not an attack, a sincere question) rodii 16:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, open to a lot of interpretation, and even offensive (and per Rob) --Matei Tache 00:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is very interesting. --Liface 02:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is a mix of movie archetypes, countercultures, and clubs. At the absolute most, this should be renamed "list of [those 3 things]." Lumping them together and adding descriptions, psychobabble, and notes about "crossover" is not only subencyclopedic, but not even research, since there's no proposed unifying hypothesis nor paradigm in which to even propose a hypothesis. --Lucent 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not all schools work that way. Being very stereotypical, not the sort of article that is helping to make the world better. It is also opinionated.

• Keep for reasons stated above. FireSpike 02:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think it necessary for WP to explore stereotypes in society, even though it is hard to do so without causing offence to some people (usually not those to whom the stereotypes refer, incidentally). I think this article, with some cleaning up, will be perfectly acceptable. WP should not be the domain of rampant political correctness. Dan 19:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari 02:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep No one is going to be perfectly happy with an article discussing sterotypes but its a perfectly valid topic. I'm not saying it couldnt be cleaned up to be more neuteral, but it doesnt deserve deletion --Phoenix9 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Let's say for the sake of argument that this article is on a "perfectly valid topic" and just needs "cleaning up." If it were "cleaned up" by removing everything that wasn't sourced (WP:V), that was original research (WP:NOR) or that was POV (WP:NPOV), what would be left? "The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus," and this article violates all or them, repeatedly, and the arguments to keep utterly ignore that. rodii 00:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: And yet most people are voting keep. How bizarre. Why do you believe this crucial topic can't be sourced? Have you tried? [7] [8]. -- JJay 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I absolutely believe that something could be made of this article. Here's how: (1) delete every word on the page; (2) do some actual research (thanks for the references) about high school subcultures; (3) write it up, with references. I'm not going to do that, though, and no one else is either as long as there is a long, random list of stereotypes filling that page. It could make a great basis for a website of its own, I must say, with a scope like urbandictionary or the late lamented TV Tropes wiki. But as it is, it's worthless--as opposed to "vital" or "crucial"--and I don't see it developing in a useful way. I (still) support what Rob says above, 100%. rodii 04:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nicely said. I am at a loss as to why people are so keen to keep this sort of junk. It is a blight on the Wikipedia and Wikipedia's attempt to be a serious encyclopaedic work. --Daveb 12:39, 3 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.