285:(begrudgingly) At first glance, this seemed like a no-brainer neologism. But with the Sidney Morning Herald article (and a few others that seem to be behind pay barriers), and from many other mentions as a real subculture, I will admit this deserves an entry on WP. However, a lot of work needs to be done to this article in order to bring it up to standards.
438:: a term recently coined, not appearing in dictionaries, but used widely or within certain communities (2006 is still pretty recent, BtW). Unfortunately neologisms are simply not good topics for encyclopedia articles, because reliable sources rarely devote any significant coverage to them, and for that reason we generally do not keep articles about them. --
833:
if I wanted to...repetition doesn't equal notability or verifiability. Either there exists substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability and to verify information about the topic, or there doesn't. In all the iterations of "scene" articles above there clearly weren't, and
549:
article is rather poorly referenced anyway (I note references to blogs, retailers, urbandictionary, and many others sources of the random "i findz it on the internetz" variety) and cites no sources in reference to "scene" fashion or culture. A picture of 3 random kids standing on an airstrip does not
322:
requires "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and I've seen no sources in this or any of the past incarnations of "scene" articles that approach this threshold. I would be satisfied with 2 or 3 sources giving substantial coverage to the topic of
809:
This is all the more reason to keep the article and to create redirects so that there will not be a proliferation of things that need to be merged. The fact that it has been created so many times indicates that this is not just an unknown neologism. One of those references that IllaZilla deleted was
571:
Existing sources are in one case not reliable and in the other case do not seem to support contention that it is a significant sub-culture (no explanation of geographical extent or popularity). Incidentally, the article was written in 2008, so is problematic as sole evidence for a 2010s sub-culture.
828:
something in the text. Otherwise we have no way of knowing that it covers "scene" in any detail at all. And my opinion is clearly contrary to yours: we don't just decide to keep an article because it's something that keeps getting recreated. I could create and re-create articles on neologisms and
473:
deletable" (original emphasis). The article creator is quite opposed to the deletion. Whether his/her reasoning behind that is in good faith or within policy is irrelevant; the mere fact that someone has objected to the deletion means this article fails the primary criteria for deletion via prod.
406:
The problem is I know for a fact it's notable, it's just unfortunately there is not a lot of things professionally written about it. do a google search and a TON of things come up, but for some reason very little that would be considered encyclopedic. however the term has been used since at least
640:
which lumps "scene kids" in with goths, "emos", "moshers", etc. and derives its definition of "scene kid" from urbandictionary.com, which is a thoroughly unreliable wiki. I don't see anything here that would serve to substantially improve this article or raise it above the status of neologism. I
433:
through substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. If no such coverage exists, then the topic simply isn't notable enough for
Knowledge (XXG). Look, I get it: you like "scene", you've read about it on the internet, whatever... that doesn't mean it's a suitable topic for an encyclopedia
874:"The fact that it has been created so many times indicates that this is not just an unknown neologism." Why not use the time you've wasted putting this up and processing the entry for deletion for finding reliable sources. They're are many. Try NME/Kerrang/Metro as at least a start.
1052:. Note that articles at all of those titles have been previously deleted. Obviously if this article is deleted then these redirects should be too, and IMO all except "scene fashion" should be deleted either way as they are ridiculous and implausible search terms. --
641:
think the fact that various forms of "scene", "scene kid", and "scene subculture" articles have been previously deleted over a half dozen times speaks volumes: it doesn't appear that any more reliable sources have appeared since any of those deletions took place. --
998:
It matters little if it is "a real thing that someone could plausibly look up". There are insufficient reliable sources available to verify contents of an encyclopedia article about it. The standard for inclusion on
Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth.
323:"scene" in reliable mainstream press (ie. nationally distributed music or style magazines), but none seem to exist at this time. Given the poor quality of the 1 or 2 tenuous sources that have been found, I'm still unconvinced that this is anything more than a
957:
per IllaZilla. It's not necessarily the case that sources will always be a problem, if this is in fact a phenomenon that is at all wide-spread. But at the moment the sources just aren't there, and almost everything in the article is original research.
348:
talk page comment. How these amount to "deletion is not uncontroversial" is a bit beyond me, as the author's keep rationale is "ever heard the saying 'scene kids wet the bed'?" I think that speaks for itself about this article's merits, really.
171:
681:
244:. The only sources previously cited in this article were thoroughly unreliable." Article history since nomination as well as talk page comments indicate that deletion is not uncontroversial, so I'm re-listing here.
739:
434:
article. If you're scraping the bottom of the internet blogosphere barrel to find even the most tenuous source around which to base the article, then I'm sorry but it's just not notable. "Scene" is plainly a
775:
15 times already speaks volumes to me. Editors who create these articles and insist on keeping them have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for sources, usually turning up only passing mentions,
900:
733:
303:
699:
660:: Per Graeme Bartlett's comment, I've had a look through past AfDs. Seems we've been deleting variants of "scene subculture/music/fashion" articles every few months for over 4 years:
165:
789:
enough for
Wikipdia, as evidenced by the lack of decent sources found over these many AfDs. Given the high number of recrations over the years, it may be time to start applying some
636:
I have looked through the references you added and weeded out most as either unuseful, passing mentions, mirrors of the already-used Sydney
Morning Herald ref, etc. We are left with
126:
693:
675:
711:
824:
You didn't list it as a reference, you listed it as an external link. If it's a link, then it needs a url. If there's no url for it, then you need to actually use it to
717:
705:
306:
and found to be a very poor source, woefully insufficient to support an encyclopedic article on the topic (one glance at the source shows why...). The second source (
318:. AbbaIdea2010's previous "sources" for the article were blogs and last.fm user profiles; also clearly unreliable, and he claimed they were "the best I could find."
669:
131:
757:
751:
687:
99:
94:
834:
this case appears to be no different. Sources presented have all been of the bottom-of-the-barrel, random-internet, passing-mention, blog/forum variety. --
103:
344:: The "article history and talk page comments since prodding" consisted of AbbaIkea2010 reverting my removal of the unreliable blog sources, and making
86:
550:
support the claim that this is an actual subculture, or that sufficient sources about it exist around which to write an encyclopedia article. --
186:
302:: The 2 sources added are still insufficient and of questionable reliability. The Sydney Morning Herald article was already discussed in
153:
904:
771:
article that is an improvement over anything we've deleted before, and the fact that we've deleted articles on the neologism "scene"
17:
881:
327:, and I would not expect an article on it to be able to reach even a C-level of quality given the lack of available sources. --
213:
147:
965:
90:
392:. Random internet insults towards "scene kids" don't demonstrate that this is a topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage. --
143:
1091:
1061:
1027:
1008:
993:
972:
949:
941:
916:
889:
864:
843:
819:
802:
650:
631:
591:
559:
536:
519:
496:
482:
447:
416:
401:
376:
358:
336:
294:
277:
259:
241:
68:
1108:
36:
907:
turn up...surprise: nothing useful. It does little good to say "sources exist"; you've got to actually show them. --
637:
193:
895:
If you've got the sources, why don't you present them? A number of editors have searched for sources that meet our
619:
1087:
815:
627:
525:
237:
1107:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1049:
768:
606:
82:
74:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
933:
367:
i didn't mean to insult scene, but the fact there is such a saying proves i didn't make the whole thing up.
984:. it is a real thing that someone could plausibly look up and expect an article, but it's older than 2010.
885:
877:
422:
723:
615:
515:
412:
372:
273:
159:
542:
290:
745:
603:
1083:
989:
811:
623:
546:
507:
1057:
1004:
912:
839:
798:
646:
555:
492:
443:
397:
354:
332:
207:
179:
1023:
860:
781:-type "scene kid" profiles, blogs, and messageboard forums; none or very few of which would pass
727:
968:
585:
511:
408:
368:
307:
269:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1018:
The articles creator just tried to close this as no consensus. I have reverted his changes.
825:
790:
466:
389:
286:
435:
324:
217:
53:
985:
530:
476:
253:
896:
782:
573:
386:
315:
221:
1053:
1000:
927:
908:
835:
794:
642:
551:
488:
487:
It's rather a moot point since we're here at AfD now, but I accept your explanation. --
439:
393:
350:
328:
203:
59:
786:
382:
319:
225:
49:
1045:
1019:
856:
612:
609:
385:
enough for an encyclopedia article, as demonstrated through significant coverage in
1041:
960:
599:
although rename as it was also present in the 2000s. This has alos been around as
579:
429:" is not a sufficient reason to have an encyclopedia article on it. Notability is
120:
1075:
1033:
1037:
777:
855:
doomed to OR synthesis. Sourcing for this article will always be a problem.
785:. It seems to me that "scene", whether a neologism or a trend, is simply not
228:. The acceptability of "scene" as an article topic has been discussed before
1079:
682:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene (subculture) (second nomination)
663:
600:
740:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene (fashion) (2nd nomination)
233:
229:
310:) appears to be some kind of "how to" blog...a glance at the site's
469:
the proposed deletion process is for articles where an article is "
1101:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
381:
The issue isn't whether you made "scene" up, it's whether it is
734:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene (youth subculture)
700:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene (fashion trends)
311:
694:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scenes (sociology)
676:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene (subculture)
236:, and previous "Scene subculture" articles were deleted
767:
As I stated above, I don't see anything in the current
345:
116:
112:
108:
178:
712:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene (fashion)
718:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene fashion
706:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene (style)
192:
670:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene points
758:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene queen
752:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene music
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1111:). No further edits should be made to this page.
688:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scene kids
48:. The "keep" comments mostly do not address the
1082:would be OK as redirects, but not the plurals.
510:has a picture of "scene kids" in its gallery?
202:Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by
899:and come up with very little. My searches of
8:
314:indicates to me that it likely doesn't pass
708:– Mar. 2008 (previously speedied Dec. 2007)
926:per the many good arguments made above by
720:– Jul. 2008 (re-deleted by PROD Feb. 2009)
618:. I will copy over my references from
748:– G4'd in Dec. 2008, G1'd in Jan. 2009
1074:if the article survives I think that
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
793:to some of these variant titles. --
407:2006. so it is hardly a neologism.
216:) with the rationale "subject is a
24:
666:– speedied 8 times since Dec. '05
421:Therein lies the central issue: "
726:– deleted following deletion of
224:exist to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s
1032:He also went ahead and created
1:
844:22:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
820:21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
803:19:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
651:03:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
632:01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
620:User:Graeme Bartlett/sandbox3
592:23:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
572:I continue searches for more
560:22:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
537:22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
520:22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
497:22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
483:22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
448:22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
417:22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
402:22:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
377:21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
359:20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
337:19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
295:17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
278:16:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
260:16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
1128:
268:i added reliable sources.
1092:09:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
1062:04:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
1028:04:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
1009:20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
994:16:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
973:15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
950:04:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
917:03:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
890:01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
865:07:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
506:What about the fact that
69:06:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
1104:Please do not modify it.
1050:Scene (2010s subculture)
769:Scene (2010s subculture)
607:Scene (youth subculture)
83:Scene (2010s subculture)
75:Scene (2010s subculture)
32:Please do not modify it.
220:for which insufficient
724:Scene (type of people)
616:Scene (type of people)
897:reliability standards
576:but none found yet.--
423:It's notable, I just
829:non-notable persons
547:1990-2009 in fashion
508:1990-2009 in fashion
226:verifiability policy
935:RepublicanJacobite
728:Scene (subculture)
342:Additional comment
56:sourcing problem.
44:The result was
971:
880:comment added by
746:Scene (community)
604:Scene (community)
390:secondary sources
67:
1119:
1106:
1048:as redirects to
964:
948:
944:
936:
892:
589:
582:
535:
481:
304:the previous AfD
258:
222:reliable sources
197:
196:
182:
134:
124:
106:
66:
64:
57:
34:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1109:deletion review
1102:
1084:Graeme Bartlett
947:
942:
934:
931:
875:
812:Graeme Bartlett
624:Graeme Bartlett
580:
578:
529:
526:WP:NOTINHERITED
475:
252:
139:
130:
97:
81:
78:
60:
58:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1125:
1123:
1114:
1113:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1013:
1012:
1011:
975:
952:
943:The'FortyFive'
939:
921:
920:
919:
868:
867:
849:
848:
847:
846:
806:
805:
764:
763:
762:
761:
755:
749:
743:
737:
731:
721:
715:
709:
703:
697:
691:
685:
679:
673:
667:
655:
654:
653:
594:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
501:
500:
499:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
362:
361:
297:
280:
200:
199:
136:
132:AfD statistics
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1124:
1112:
1110:
1105:
1099:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:Scene fashion
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
976:
974:
970:
967:
966:contributions
963:
962:
956:
953:
951:
946:
945:
938:
937:
929:
925:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
893:
891:
887:
883:
879:
873:
870:
869:
866:
862:
858:
854:
851:
850:
845:
841:
837:
832:
827:
823:
822:
821:
817:
813:
808:
807:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
779:
774:
770:
766:
765:
759:
756:
753:
750:
747:
744:
741:
738:
735:
732:
729:
725:
722:
719:
716:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
695:
692:
689:
686:
683:
680:
677:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
661:
659:
656:
652:
648:
644:
639:
635:
634:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
614:
613:Scene fashion
611:
610:Scene (style)
608:
605:
602:
598:
595:
593:
590:
587:
583:
575:
570:
567:
561:
557:
553:
548:
544:
540:
539:
538:
534:
533:
527:
523:
522:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
485:
484:
480:
479:
472:
471:uncontestably
468:
464:
461:
449:
445:
441:
437:
432:
428:
426:
420:
419:
418:
414:
410:
405:
404:
403:
399:
395:
391:
388:
384:
380:
379:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:
364:
363:
360:
356:
352:
347:
343:
340:
339:
338:
334:
330:
326:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
296:
292:
288:
284:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:
263:
262:
261:
257:
256:
250:
245:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
205:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
141:Find sources:
137:
133:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
65:
63:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1103:
1100:
1042:Scene points
1015:
981:
977:
959:
954:
940:
932:
923:
871:
852:
830:
776:
772:
730:in Jul. 2008
657:
596:
577:
568:
543:WP:OTHERCRAP
531:
512:AbbaIkea2010
503:
477:
470:
462:
430:
424:
409:AbbaIkea2010
369:AbbaIkea2010
341:
299:
282:
270:AbbaIkea2010
265:
254:
248:
246:
210:
201:
189:
183:
175:
168:
162:
156:
150:
140:
61:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1076:Scene queen
1034:Scene queen
882:82.23.23.45
876:—Preceding
760:– Feb. 2010
754:– Dec. 2009
742:– Nov. 2008
736:– Oct. 2008
702:– Feb. 2008
696:– Mar. 2007
690:– Jan. 2007
684:– Nov. 2006
678:– Nov. 2006
672:– Aug. 2006
287:Angryapathy
166:free images
1038:Scene kids
986:badmachine
831:ad nauseum
778:Tiger Beat
714:– May 2008
532:KuyaBriBri
478:KuyaBriBri
255:KuyaBriBri
62:Sandstein
1080:Scene kid
1054:IllaZilla
1001:IllaZilla
928:IllaZilla
909:IllaZilla
836:IllaZilla
795:IllaZilla
664:Scene kid
643:IllaZilla
601:scene kid
552:IllaZilla
541:Also see
489:IllaZilla
440:IllaZilla
436:neologism
394:IllaZilla
351:IllaZilla
329:IllaZilla
325:neologism
312:home page
218:neologism
204:IllaZilla
1020:Ridernyc
878:unsigned
857:Ridernyc
810:a book.
773:at least
504:Comment:
463:Comment:
387:reliable
308:VideoJug
214:contribs
127:View log
1016:Comment
961:bonadea
905:Kerrang
787:notable
658:Comment
581:SabreBD
467:WP:PROD
383:notable
249:neutral
172:WP refs
160:scholar
100:protect
95:history
1044:, and
982:RENAME
955:Delete
924:Delete
853:Delete
569:Delete
545:— the
300:Delete
144:Google
104:delete
54:WP:NOR
46:delete
930:. ---
783:WP:RS
574:WP:RS
431:shown
427:it is
316:WP:RS
247:I am
187:JSTOR
148:books
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
1088:talk
1058:talk
1024:talk
1005:talk
990:talk
980:and
978:KEEP
969:talk
913:talk
903:and
886:talk
872:Keep
861:talk
840:talk
826:cite
816:talk
799:talk
791:salt
647:talk
638:this
628:talk
597:Keep
586:talk
556:talk
524:See
516:talk
493:talk
465:Per
444:talk
425:know
413:talk
398:talk
373:talk
355:talk
346:this
333:talk
320:WP:V
291:talk
283:Keep
274:talk
266:Keep
242:here
240:and
238:here
234:here
232:and
230:here
208:talk
180:FENS
154:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
50:WP:V
901:NME
528:. —
251:. —
194:TWL
129:•
125:– (
1090:)
1078:,
1060:)
1040:,
1036:,
1026:)
1007:)
999:--
992:)
958:--
915:)
888:)
863:)
842:)
818:)
801:)
649:)
630:)
622:.
558:)
518:)
495:)
446:)
415:)
400:)
375:)
357:)
349:--
335:)
293:)
276:)
174:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
52:/
1086:(
1056:(
1022:(
1003:(
988:(
911:(
884:(
859:(
838:(
814:(
797:(
645:(
626:(
588:)
584:(
554:(
514:(
491:(
474:—
442:(
411:(
396:(
371:(
353:(
331:(
289:(
272:(
211:·
206:(
198:)
190:·
184:·
176:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
146:(
138:(
135:)
123:)
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.