Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (style)

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 Delete per WP:SNOW --JForget 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scene (style)

Scene (style) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article doesn't cite a single source at all (despite its creator's claim that "This is all fact and should not be removed from Wikipedia at all"), and is made up of pure original research and speculation. If there is going to be an article on Wikipedia on what "scene" entails, it needs to cite reliable sources. As it is, there's none. TheLetterM (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. --Prewitt81 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: On the one hand, I am familiar, at least in passing, with the subject of this article and it seems to me that, with a little work, this could be a passable treatment of the subject. On the other hand, I am not a verifiable secondary source, so I cannot provide verifiablity to any of the article's contents. Further, even if everything in the article were verifiable, scene (in this sense) is still a neologism, and no proof of notability is offered. However, this article is very new (less than a day) so perhaps some time should be given for appropriate references to be cited; if they are not then deletion may well be the proper course of action. OlenWhitaker (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as wholly unreferenced, seemingly original research. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No refs, unverifiable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be an original synthesis not supported by sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - As one of those who might be called "scene", I think this article could go somewhere. The scene image/"lifestyle" is very prevalent in today's youth, and I think this warrants some kind of article. This needs to be cleaned up a lot, however. --06:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boadrummer (talk • contribs)

Prevalent or not, this article cites no sources. Remember that inclusion in Wikipedia is dependent on verifiability, not truth. It's true that I'm wearing sweatpants right now, and it's true that I can walk around on any college or high school campus and see examples of scene kids as portrayed in the article. However, my sweatpants don't warrant an article on Wikipedia just because it's true that I'm wearing them, and the same goes for this article just because people exist who are "scene". If it's going to stay, it has to get rid of all of the original research (this is the first I've ever heard about "gore names"), and cite sources that can be relied on and are pertinent to the article. AFDs usually run five days since they're started, that should be enough time for anyone who wants to save this article to find sources. TheLetterM (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - pure original research. I thought "scene" was a generic term (e.g. metal scene, techno scene, indie scene, etc.) - apparently there's a specific scene? Yet the article gives me no way of knowing for sure - Chardish (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Keep - This Article is less than a day old, The author should be given a chance to make it into something before we go deleting it.--A^xcess (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Obviously pasted in, the first revision had several broken links, which seems like pretty good evidence this was copied from an article deleted in the past.--A^xcess (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I swear I've seen this article at AFD before in the past month. Let me look into it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

hmmm I guess I was wrong, it must have been something different.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah-hah I stand corrected from my correction. I believe this article is related to [1] and all the previously deleted relatives thereof [2]. I can't say it's a recreation of deleted content, but the opening comment in the edit history makes it appear as though the editor is expecting an AFD.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: That's true. When the page was created the author added a preemtive strike against an expected deletion to the edit summary. This seems to indicate that even the author suspected that this article was not up to Wikipedia standards. That hardly helps its case. He would have been better off to have said nothing and acted surprised when the AfD came up. OlenWhitaker (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This doesn't seem to explain any specific movement, just that there is a "fashion scene". I agree in total with Chardish.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Urban dictionary and myspace are the least reliable places aywhere. No notability is really established and it is more of a neologism. Reywas92^Talk 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Original research/personal essay. — ERcheck (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and Salt this crap keeps reappearing and needs to gotten rid of once and for all. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There's more than a whiff of original research about this, and reading the Urban Dictionary page linked from the article, it seems as though the article is the result of a misunderstanding anyway. That is to say, the UD page seems to talk about "Scene Kids" as "those who slavishly follow a given scene [of which there are several]", while this article talks about them as if all of these scenes are one and the same. Or something. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Come on. Let it WP:SNOW baby!--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Harsh I think my last comment was a little harsh, but I still think someone could close this down without controversy at this point. No disrespect meant to the "keep" editors.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Apparently, some of the content on the page is a direct copy of one of the definitions on UrbanDictionary. I think that that's probably grounds for speedy delete under copyright infringement (even if the purported UD link is in the links section), but it should probably just wait the rest of the 5 days until it's deleted. I wouldn't be against a snowy delete, though. TheLetterM (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (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.