Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mall goth

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, unverifiable neologism. RasputinAXP c 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mall goth

Unverifiable OR, no reason this page should exist pschemp | talk 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD from last October, closed as a non consensus. --W.marsh 01:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NOR Alphachimp ^talk 01:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some kind of source for any of these claims can finally be produced. Classic original research and conjecture... ultimately just ammounts to opinions of the editors who write it, I like to think that's not what the project is about. There's plenty of other places for that stuff. --W.marsh 01:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheap Redirect to ~~Goth subculture~~ mallcore as it is a plausible search term. Absolutely no prejudice against deletion first. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheap redirect per youngamerican ;) AdamBiswanger1 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Adambiswanger1. Danny Lilithborne 01:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If its to be redirected, then it should be to the mallcore article, as mallgoth has no real relation to Goth subculture. - Deathrocker 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Mansonite. - DNewhall 02:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and probably non-notable. There's no reason why we can't have articles on derogatory terms if done properly (e.g., see Chav), however this article shows no signs of improvement, and should be deleted in its current state - if someone were to recreate a page done properly, then so be it. Even then, I'm not sure it's notable - only 851 Google hits for example, which are mainly forums, and I can't see any reliable sources. Mdwh 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mansonite, Mallcore describes a similar, but different subculture. JChap (Talk) 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mansonite per JChap2007, merge if necessary. HumbleGod 03:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a single good target for the redirect (there are several) and the term hasn't been shown notable (urban dictionary is not a source to establish notability all by itself) so I think a straight Delete with no redirect is probably the best approach ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOR, non-notable term. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salvagable info into mallcore, Goth subculture, mansonite and any other that apply and redirect to mallcore per Adam. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E
Delete as unverified original research that does not cite sources. If (and only if) this gets sourced, then a merge to Goth subculture would be appropriate.--Isotope23 13:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with angst, unless a real citation (i.e. not Urban Dictionary) can be found. WilyD 13:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Going against the grain, I know, and don't worry, no hard feelings if it's deleted. It's just that I know I've heard the term before, and I don't think the proposed merges accurately describe similar topics. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 14:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've all heard the term before... but see WP:V, the issue is whether it's ever been given a meaningful definition or information in print. Which doesn't seem to be the case. Verifiability isn't optional. --W.marsh 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. It's been redirected before. The people who enjoy original research undo the redirect. "Goths" instead keep insisting that there's some meaningful distinction between a "real goth" and a "mall goth", but reliable sources for this have not been produced. Friday (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This term is common knowledge, and doesn't need a print citation. Lots of articles don't cite sources; they don't all end up in AFD. I oppose the hidden snob motive, and therefore vote to keep. Bacchiad 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, but a source must be able to be produced. See WP:V, which clearly states that this is non-negotiable. --W.marsh 20:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and if it is common knowledge, finding a verifiable source should be a rather easy undertaking.--Isotope23 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also delete/discourage real mall goths if possible. dcandeto 22:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to or Merge with Mansonite or Mallcore. Jesustrashcan 12:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, overglorified dictionary definition sans sources. RFerreira 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article and all proposed redirect/merge articles fails WP:NOR —Asatruer 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.