Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene fashion

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 --JForget 23:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scene fashion[edit]

Obvious POV problems, self-admitted essay, no third party sources, no reliable sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I put a bunch of improvement tags on it weeks ago but no effort has been made to provide reliable third party sources to back notability. It reads and feels like a self interested exercise by someone with a COI. Mfield (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this article violates WP:SYNTHESIS. Going through the sources, a lot of them really did not deal directly with the subject. It undoubtedly, at the very least, it needs a great deal of rewriting. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a cleanup. As a result there is little to no content. It is no different from repeated deletions of Scenester and Scene queen and numerous other variations of the term, none of which (including this incarnation) successfully were able to establish as a notable neologism. At least the subculture article cited may be a start. -Verdatum (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like someone's personal opinion of Scene rather than a factual recording of it. - Contortion
Delete - the post cleanup makes it very clear. Thank you Verdatum. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As User:Verdatum noted above, this appears to be a re-sprout of Scene kids and the like. (An admin mentioned to me that Scene kids was shorter and even worse, though. The current article at least looks mildly like a real entry at first glance.) Even after some cleanup, this article is essay-like opinion. No notable examples of people who match this topic, and the article is opinionated enough that listing any person as an example is likely to violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In short, non-neutral, unencyclopedic, and no clear way to become encyclopedic. --Closeapple (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (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.