Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mansonite

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mansonite

Its been three years since this article was started, and after all that time we've yet to receive any reliable sources for this article. It also reads much like an over-glorified dictionary definition, failing WP:NOT. Of the two external links provided, one is for Encyclopedia Gothica (not reliable) and the latter is a BBC article which does nothing to support the existence of this neologism. My suggestion would be to delete as unsourced original research. RFerreira 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dahn 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It really doesn't matter how long the article has been lacking good sources (I've seen pages tagged with notability since 2004), but it does fail WP:NOT, so delete this sucker. Diez2 02:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 10,200 Ghits, so it should be sourceable. Lack of sources is not presently a deletion criterion. The article goes into more detail than a simple dictionary defintion would, so does not fail WP:NOT, as claimed. dryguy 02:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You cite the speedy deletion criteria, not the regular deletion criteria. Try again. --Dennisthe2 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Umm, it's a proposed criteria, and the point is that it is failing to muster consensus. There is no regular deletion criteria that says lack of citations is grounds for deletion. If there was, the majority of Wikipedia would be up for AfD. The closest existing regular deletion criteria I can find to support those who want to delete this, is that unverifiable articles should be deleted. Since this term has 10,200 Ghits, it may be verifiable. If someone wants to argue otherwise, I'm all ears. dryguy 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  What? Lack of sources can well be a valid deletion criterion, if the article cannot be transformed into something verifiable by the close of this discussion it can and should be deleted. RFerreira 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiability is a criterion for deletion. Simple lack of sources is not currently a guideline for deletion. If I'm wrong, then cite the guideline that explicity says this and I'll change my vote. If you want to argue that Mansonite is unverifiable, you should do so, and lay off the spurious argument that lack of sources is a criterion for deletion. dryguy 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are citing Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, which is not really relevant here. My reasons for deletion are clear and I'll stick with them, thanks. RFerreira 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Clear, but contrary to guidelines. dryguy 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment For the last time, speedy deletion has nothing to do with the Articles for Deletion process. Stop citing policy that has no bearing on this discussion. Danny Lilithborne 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I referenced the talk page, not the proposal (it isn't policy). If you read through the comments, you will see that there is not a consensus that lack of citations is a criterion for deletion, speedy or otherwise. There is no relevant policy to cite, simply because there isn't an existing policy that states that lack of references is a criterion for deletion. dryguy 13:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The page is up for AfD as "unsourced original research", not for lack of citations. See the criteria for deletion for more details. Lack of citations is grounds for putting a banner that says there are no citations for the work. Your policy cite still has no bearing on the discussion, and you've been asked by Danny above to please stop doing this. --Dennisthe2 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for ignoring my point. 10,200 Ghits is likely to be evidence of the existence of external sources, which might well show that the subject of the article isn't OR. There may be parts of the article that are OR, which is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. dryguy 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Now in some articles it might be that the sources exist but haven't been added - given that it's been three years, this seems unlikely here. If someone finds a reliable source for mansonite in future, they can always add a new article based on that. Mdwh 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. Just H 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Almost a Transwiki. Almost. --Dennisthe2 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism with little to no sourcing. Danny Lilithborne 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Per above--SUIT 05:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a subtype of Marilyn Manson fan? Almost BJAODN, except it isn't funny. Besides, we had some mansonite in our kitchen and it was really hard to get out. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Per above. Kukini 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, even though I've contributed to the article. Although I certainly believe that everything in the article is true, unfortunately, it is very hard to find documented sources for these kinds of things. Although I believe that the information in the article deserves to be on Wikipedia somewhere, perhaps as a segment of the Goth subculture article, AFAIK the term "Mansonite" is not even in widespread use-I can rattle off a half-dozen alternate terms for the same thing which I've heard both on the Internet and in local scenes, whereas I never heard "Mansonite" until I came to Wikipedia. The behaviour/stereotype described in the article is not limited to Marilyn Manson fans, either. Perhaps a more useful, similar article can be created in the future. --Halloween jack 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep Lots of google hits. Seems to be in common usage in some groups, and the article provides useful insight into that aspect of the culture. Per proposal at WP:ATT it could probably be sourced with less reliable sources than we would require for most articles, too, which might make some sources become available. JulesH 09:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  Strong keep The more I think about this, the more I feel we shouldn't be deleting stuff based on a lack of sources, when a proposed policy change that looks likely to succeed will make the sources we do have acceptable. JulesH 09:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC):

What policy change is that? If you mean WP:ATT, that still requires "reliable, published source". If anything, I'd say that policy strengthens existing policy, and would be all the more reason to delete this article. Mdwh 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Even if WP:ATT becomes policy, the "Encyclopedia Gothica" would seem to be what it calls a "questionable source". The BBC link doesn't contain the word "mansonite" at all. Demiurge 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Yes, Encyclopedia Gothica may qualify as a "questionable source" (although I'm uncertain; it seems to have an editor independent of the content creators and to require a minimum standard from its articles, but as to what fact-checking processes they employ it is hard to tell), but I feel this particular source would still be usable on this article despite these reservations, due to the exception for subjects "where professional sources offer shallow coverage". I don't think there are many professional quality sources on attitudes between different subsections of the goth subculture. JulesH 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Encyclopedia Gothica is probably about as questionable as the Jargon File - even if the JF has been around longer. It kind of becomes one of those things that are questionable only because it's something that documents particulars of a community. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Not having sources is not a reason for deletion. Reliable sources not existing is. The first needs cleanup, the second is a violation of WP:V. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. dryguy 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable evidence that it exists as a term outside the article creator's head, in which case it's a neologism and/or Original Research. --Orange Mike 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The term does exist outside the author's head (it's not rare in the goth community as a disparagement) but this is stuff for a slang dictionary, not an encyclopedia; at best, it rates a small mention on Marilyn Manson, but not sure it rates even that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nominator. Linuxaurus 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The term certainly exists, but it's already mentioned in Goth slang, and I'm not sure what else we can say about it that would be notable and verifiable. Mdwh 23:39, 30 November 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.