Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chreamo


 * 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. However, any recreation WITH sources should not be deleted without another debate.-Docg 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Chreamo

 * — (View AfD)

Unreferenced article, possibly a neolgism. Many statements in the article are not WP:NPOV or WP:WEASEL. Fruthermore, I can personally attest that some of the bands mentioned there are not at all emo. It would be nice to avoid the trash-talking of the concept of such groups in this discussion. --YbborT 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, I had already deleted an entry of this word on the Screamo page and I've never heard of it before and I'm very familiar with sub-genres of hardcore. As stated above the bands mentioned aren't even Emo/Screamo anyway. Google search returns nothing but a Urban dictionary page, an EBay user profile, one MySpace & one Xanga profile. Not to mention the sole editor is the person who has added it to other Wikipedia pages. The word it's self also provides nothing useful as a description anyway and at a push could already be covered by the term Christcore. Diabolical 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Definitely a WP:NEO; no sources.  Most of the google hits are for an ebay username chreamo. John Vandenberg 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete This needs to be deleted. User made term, same as Christcore.User:PTdub
 * it works it is still a word in early circulation. it started just as other slangs of its type. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.188.41.126 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC), and claimed by Samgoody777 at 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a wordi've heard it frequently. i'm not sure about most of the bands listed here, but it is most definetly a 'real' word and should be included. this word is also known in Australia. This user is not the first to think of this word if this user even did 'invent' it. the definition may need some touch-ups, but it is a word and the definition is close. if the word is deleted now, it will be reposted by someone eventually —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.188.41.126 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, it's a word, but...should it be deleted? No. Revised, perhaps, but not deleted, be for this is an applicable word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.188.41.126 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Whether "chreamo" is a word or not is an issue for a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  It is an encyclopaedia.  The issue for an encyclopaedia is whether such a genre of music exists and has been properly documented.  You have shown no evidence that this is the case. Uncle G 18:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now come on, deleting peoples replies is not on! Diabolical 01:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * However to reply to your points, there are no reliable results on the internet, now if it was known it would appear on the internet much more than it does. If it is a new word then that doesn't warrant inclusion on an encyclopaedia as it could fall out of use as quickly as it came in. I would like everyone else to note that two of those comments were posted by the same IP which I believe is probably the same IP as the user Samgoody777, so that the page isn't deleted. Also note that all Delete votes were deleted from the page! Diabolical 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Infact, I know it is the same IP, if you would like to check the History page, and changed HagermanBot's unsigned signature. Diabolical 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Altering existing text from a discussion is not to be encouraged. I've restored HagermanBot unsigned signature and noted that Samgoody777 has claimed that IP address. John Vandenberg 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood, as reading back I did word it badly but I meant that I had restored the bot edit that was changed by Samgoody777. Diabolical 00:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator: This should also be salted, since the author's use of both IP's and usernames to vote multiple times, deletion of votes (and poor understanding of wikiprocess) indicate that he may continue to recretate the page otherwise. --YbborT 03:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * apologyI am Samgoody777. I am sorry for deleting three other comments, however i have not changed any names intentionally and am unfamiliar with HermanBot. i am new to this type of thing and am not familiar with wikiprocess. I will delete all of my votes and leave this one in favor of Chreamo --Samgoody777 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While well-intended, deleting existing text makes a discussion hard to follow. John Vandenberg 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * this page will be deleted. why all of the beating around the bush? i will not repost this word if it is deleted. the points that y'all have made make it clear that chreamo is not ready for inclusion in an encyclopedia. i was ignorant as to the purpose and integrity of Wikipedia as an accurate source for solid information.--Samgoody777 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The page has been moved and recreated here: Christian emo, I think it should also be deleted (see talk page). Diabolical 15:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Moniska89 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is also posted on the newly moved page, but I felt that to re-emphasize my point, it should be posted here as well, so here it goes:
 * What happened? Is this a different page? I once remember a Chreamo page filled with a plethora of useful knowledge about the uprising, once underground genre of Chreamo. Now, I seem to have stumbled upon a page full of babbling nothingness that can be found anywhere else on the Internet.
 * Chreamo is an uprising fad at my school. The punk, Goth, Emo and scene kids have vanished into the past and Chreamo is what all the cute guys are talking about. And, being the pathetic follower that I am, I decided that by researching Chreamo for myself I may actually have the opportunity to fulfill my destiny with the man of my dreams (this is, after the fact that I make eye contact with him, after the fact that I awkwardly drop my pencil and hope that he picks it up, and after the fact that I tell all my friends about him hoping they’ll keep it a secret when deep down, I know they’ll tell him I like him since I‘m too shy to say it myself.)
 * The previous Chreamo page was the only website that gave the specifics about the Chreamo clique-everything from what bands are “hot and happening”, to what to wear, and how to act. True, it could have provided a picture or two of a very cute Chreamo kid with hazel eyes, light brown hair, black, white and red checkered Vans that are ripped on the left, and typical Chreamo garb, topped off with a stripped scarf, but other than that I found the previous page to be highly informational.
 * As cheesy as this sounds I actually felt as if I had a feeling of belonging and self worth, something that I hadn’t found anywhere else on the Internet including EHarmony.com (why was I looked for self worth on the Internet? I have no idea, just call me a troubled soul who searches relentlessly for the next trend so I can fit in with the “it crowd.”
 * Now, that feeling is no longer and I feel even worse. I feel as if I’m sinking back into my rock bottom state of depression, never again wanting to commit to any activity, only wanting to float around until I fly away, never to return to this lonely planet they call Earth.
 * So much for my life as a Chreamo. Now, all I seem to have to look forward to is a padded cell…
 * Keep. I gave this pup a good overhaul; now it focuses on Christian emo music, but also mentions "Chremo." &mdash; Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 10:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't add anything that isn't obvious or at least can't be covered in one of the other Christian music articles. Diabolical 14:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And it still doesn't cite any Sources! --YbborT 15:00, 14 January 2007 (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.