Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenybopper

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, see e.g. this link on Gbooks which shows that Shuker's book does make the reference. This term (which we've all heard anyway, but of course this doesn't cut it WP-wise) is a popular music term referenced in a scholarly work on popular music. Thus it easily satisfies WP:V and WP:N, and I'm sure many more sources can be found with more work (by, perhaps, the "keep" commenters below?). Also, can I take the opportunity to point out that Google Books is extremely strong? --- Deville (Talk) 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teenybopper

Teenybopper was nominated for deletion on 2005-03-22. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenybopper/2005-04-03.

Teenybopper was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-26. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenybopper music.

Wikipedia has grown since this article was last the subject of an AfD, and I believe this article, especially in the tone in which it is written, has no place on Wikipedia. Mitch 07:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and the previous concensus was delete, but the article was not deleted. Sorry for what appears to be a double post, but this is the second time this has gone through an AfD, and I don't know how to prevent that. Mitch 07:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as blend of dicdef/POV. Most people dress the same way and express similar opinions as people around them. --Thorsten1 09:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'd prefer a redirect on this one. Not sure where though... RN 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Poorly written isn't important here, but may be of interest to Cleanup. Could use better quality sources, but that's generally part of cleanup WilyD 13:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, not to nitpick, but this article isn't sourced at all.--Isotope23 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It does list Shuker as a source. WilyD 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment, OK... but who/what is "Shuker" and when/where in 1988 did he make the statement attributed to him in this article? Maybe this is just a case of very lousy sourcing and citation... but personally I don's see a (sur?)name and a year as sourcing. It needs to be tied to an external source, or at least Wiki-linked so any other reader could figure out who made this statement, when, and in what context.--Isotope23 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment nevermind... see below.--Isotope23 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • ... but gives no clue as to who that is. For all that we know, that could be simply a friend of the editor who wrote that (Clarehodder (talk · contribs)). (It's probably Roy Shuker, but the point stands: This isn't helpful to readers who don't already know of Roy Shuker.) Uncle G 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a standard citation style. While I'd never let a good article or featured article get away with it, it does cut the mustard at AfD, as far as I can tell. WilyD 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
          • This is quibbling at this point, but it's only standard when you have a bibliography at some point in your work... regardless, I made the sourcing clear. That should take care of some of the WP:V problems.--Isotope23 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, the sourcing is definitely much better now. WilyD 20:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
          • No. As Isotope23 points out it is not a citation. It's just a pointer to the actual citation, which in that style is located in a bibliography (or, in Wikipedia parlance, "References") section. See Wikipedia:Harvard referencing for how this works. To cut the mustard at AFD the source must be locatable. "Shuker (1998)" really provides no information to someone who doesn't already know what the source is, because it's just a pointer to the actual citation, rather than the actual citation itself. It's only enough to locate the citation itself, not enough to locate what is actually being cited. The actual citation, giving the name of the author, title of the work, publisher, and so forth, was never added to the article. Uncle G 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
            • No, what is it is Poorly Written including the citation - and Poorly Written isn't a criterion for deletion. WilyD 11:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't think anyone is arguing deletion based on sourcing anymore, but a "citation" that doesn't actually tell you the source is more than "poorly written"... it's unverified. It's a moot point now, but I'd argue to delete any article that tried to pass that off as sourcing or verification.--Isotope23 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Tenative Delete This is one of those "I know it exists, but it is not WP:V. I imagine it could be WP:V sourced, but an precursory look turned up no reliable sources... and since it has been tagged since May 6th, 2006 I think 4 months is enough of a reprieve. If sourced by the end of the AfD then it should be kept, but if not WP:V sourced by the end of the AfD, it should be deleted.--Isotope23 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment struck above. I found a source for this that was a bit more appropriate than a last name and a random date & added it along with a biliography. I've added cite tags to everything else that was not sourced. No opinion, though all unsourced stuff should be pulled.--Isotope23 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Granted, cleanup and some better writing could be used but that's not a reason to me to delete it. If we delete this then why not delete valley girl or sections of, if not the entire, goth article? Dismas|^(talk) 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and hand to maintenance. It's a valid cultural concept (subset of adolescence), especially as it's largely obsolete/historical. Needs better and more sources, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The term is notable for sure, but it might be hard to maintain an encyclopedia article about it. Danny Lilithborne 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as
• Keep The article is sourced and notable. Needs cleanup though.
• Delete There seems to be nothing here that could not be covered in Youth culture or Youth subculture, or even Adolescence.Jlittlet 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a dictionary plus some dates and cultural comment.-Kmaguir1 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • By dictionary plus some commentary do you mean Encyclopaedia article? WilyD 04:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand. Highly noted term. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and {{sofixit}}. Highly noted term with 312,000 search results on Google. RFerreira 20:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep I am aware of numerous times I have read and heard the term and am sure with time and effort the subject will expand and be a valuable addition here.--Bhires 19:20, 10 September 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.