Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive punk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The consensus is that this is a neoligism -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Positive punk[edit]
- Positive punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Early term for gothic subculture/gothic rock. The only source ([1]) in the article unsurprisingly deals with two gothic rock bands (Sex Gang Children and Southern Death Cult). There are various options here: Redirect to Goth subculture or Gothic rock, or/and Move to wiktionary as a dictionary term. Matsintok (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, per a Google Books search]. It is quite clear that Positive Punk is not the same thing as Goth or the connotations therein, but a true precursor that should be separate from its later iterations. SilverserenC 18:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Speaking as a punk rock fan — Non-Notable Neologism. The Gothic movement is covered elsewhere, as is the Batcave. Merge this trivial stub info to the latter, if so desired. Carrite (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I ask how it's a neologism, if it's been around since the 80's? And because it is a "trivial stub" right now does not mean that it cannot be expanded. SilverserenC 22:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response : It is a neologism, because it was a term coined by some journalist back in the time when goths didn't exist to describe a budding movement that would later be called "goth" and become hugely popular. The "positive punk" label was never really used by anyone excvept for journalists, and became famous later only because of its famous offshoot (the gothic subculture). Also you can't really call goths/gothic rock an "offshoot" of positive punk, as it is simply the actual name of this subculture. "Positive punk" was just a term used by journalists to describe a scene which didn't have a name at this time (later it did have a name, "goth") To sum it up, positive punk is simply "pre-gothic rock". There's no need to have an article about that as all the information is already in other articles. Sincerely, --Matsintok (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well put, Matsintok. This does also imply that a Redirect is very appropriate here, I note. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the compliment. Well, I'd rather go for the third option (Move and Redirect to wiktionary), as it's just a term and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Further, a more important, obvious problem with a redirect is that it would never be entirely satisfactory, as it can be redirected both to gothic rock and gothic subculture. Matsintok (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well put, Matsintok. This does also imply that a Redirect is very appropriate here, I note. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response : It is a neologism, because it was a term coined by some journalist back in the time when goths didn't exist to describe a budding movement that would later be called "goth" and become hugely popular. The "positive punk" label was never really used by anyone excvept for journalists, and became famous later only because of its famous offshoot (the gothic subculture). Also you can't really call goths/gothic rock an "offshoot" of positive punk, as it is simply the actual name of this subculture. "Positive punk" was just a term used by journalists to describe a scene which didn't have a name at this time (later it did have a name, "goth") To sum it up, positive punk is simply "pre-gothic rock". There's no need to have an article about that as all the information is already in other articles. Sincerely, --Matsintok (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable neologism. Doesn't add anything to what is already in other articles. Spatulli (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2010 (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.