Talk:Corporate Gothic

Objection to deletion

 * I object to the deletion.
 * I object WP:NFT: Corporate Gothic exists and it is a part of the Gothic Subculture. The term also exist in the Wiki slang dictionary.
 * I object WP:NEO: terms like Mods and Punks are neologism from origine as well. They exist on wiki because of the fact that there are or were a lot of people calling themself that way. There is a whole hi community in the states, calling themself CorpGoth. --CorpGoth (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I object also- the above point is a valid one, Corp Goth can denote a social subset or also a style aesthetic such as cyberpunk, crypto-anarchism, or Steampunk. I think the article needs some work on it, could use a revision but I think if your going to delete it completely you have to delete the others also - and no-one wants to see that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.128.56 (talk • contribs)


 * Dear God, please kill this page. Very Old School Goth (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tone and original research
I've put a couple tags up just now. First of all, there are overarching problems with this article's compliance with WP:TONE. In particular, the use of "we" is inappropriate for articles- "we find", "we can say", etc should all be replaced by different wording and must cite sources in those cases.

There's also the problem of original research in the "Music" section. The wording of the first sentence implies that the whole section is original research; "When it comes to clothing, there are some bands we can say they might have inspired some CorpGoths". There are no sources cited, and with that wording the first conclusion is that it's OR. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration
I wonder if the vampires who ran the corporation that Buffy/Angel battled (in BTVS and Angel) inspired early corpgoths or vice-versa?? It just seems too odd to be coincidence, but maybe someone who already knows of any such link might be able to shed some light on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.22.160 (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

inappropriate tone, limited relevance to...anything. delete.
nominate for deletion. how is this worthy of its own article? 67.176.25.230 (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I second that. Very Old School Goth (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that a deletion debate was held some months ago, see Articles for deletion/Corporate Gothic if interested. The short answer is that it sufficiently meets our notability guidelines to convince a number of regular editors that it merits inclusion. You and I may not agree on that, but them's the breaks.
 * I will note however that if you do consider something inappropriate or incorrect in this article, you are encouraged to be bold(!) and fix it. :-) &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There should be another debate now. The only way to fix something so banal is to delete it. 76.181.245.123 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the "Wikipedia way" is specifically not to delete something that's simply a "bad article" (see WP:RUBBISH). Unless it's clear the article's subject is completely non-notable (which was refuted in the last debate), or is blatantly promotional, it's tough to just delete it. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Music section
What's with all the Industrial acts in this list? I thought this was supposed to be "Corporate Gothic" not "Corporate Rivethead". Very Old School Goth (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And why are there bots protecting the page from changes?Very Old School Goth (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a bot reverting your contributions; it was a user engaging in recent changes patrolling with a semi-automated tool called Huggle. The reason your removal got reverted was likely because it just looked vandalistic or like POV warring (considering your username and the subject). It's no biggie. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)