Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool S


 * 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 keep. At this point it appears enough independent sources have been located to confirm that the article passes WP:GNG, however marginally. And I was particularly swayed by User:BloodyKnuckles1' well-reasoned argument about nerds. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool S

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:GNG. Incidentally I live in Bristol, a much-graffed city, and spend quite a lot of time photographing both the pieces and the accumulation of tags. I have never seen this device... TheLongTone (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually can't believe someone hasn't heard of it. Just ask any schoolkid (or, even better, someone who grew up in the 90's) if they'd seen that S. I grew up in Sharjah and went to school in Choueifat Sharjah. That's where I learned to draw it. Just last year, my family migrated to Melbourne. The most likely reason I know about it and you don't is that I am only 12. Besides, you can't delete it because I tried to be as nerdy as I can just so you editors don't delete it. BloodyKnuckles1 (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * There really is just that single Vice article -- which was picked up and mirrored elsewhere. Fails WP:GNG. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, actually, the vice article was written on July 27, 2016, and the S was there long before that. And what part of WP:GNG does it fail? I actually don't see why you can't just leave it and do something else. That won't hurt anyone (no offense). BloodyKnuckles1 (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. See WP:ITEXISTS. It doesn't matter when the "s" came into existence it's when and if it has achieved WP:NOTABILITY, which we establish through WP:Reliable sources. Not existence. You're fairly new here and you've stated that you're a young editor, so a lot of these rules may be unfamiliar to you. But over time Wikipedia has amassed a rather large set of policies about how to determine if things or people pass a certain threshold of notability. Often they do not. It doesn't mean there isn't something real or perhaps interesting there, it's just that this encyclopedia has certain benchmarks that need to be met, in terms of significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Besides, you can't delete it because I tried to be as nerdy as I can just so you editors don't delete it." Probably the best "keep" rationale I've ever encountered.  freshacconci  talk to me  21:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would actually lean towards keeping it had it not been written the way it is now. But for now it reads more or less like a guidebook or manual which is not acceptable for an online encyclopedia. Note that the creator of this page has had several of his pages deleted, presumably for this very reason, and might not have spent enough time reading our article creation policies. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Found another source by searching "pointy s", one of the alternate names. Possibly there are more, but apart from blogs I'm not finding much. Ewulp (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good. It's an article from Print (magazine) that doesn't seem to be a mirror of the Vice article. Change to neutral. It pays to be nerdy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I've made changes to the page to reduce the emphasis on drawing instructions, to discuss the contested origin of the symbol and incorporate the source that User:Ewulp found. I'm inclined to keep the page by instinct but I'm not !voting because I recognise I'm still a noob and don't have strong feelings about it. Anecdotally, everyone I knew at school ('90s, near Bristol) drew this frequently. It does seem like something of a phenomenon, but I haven't seen sources giving more objective data about how widespread it was or where it came from. Mortee (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep – Squeaks by GNG as per Vice, Print, NYU Local. No prejudice against a potential merge to Graffiti. North America1000 02:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I remember this right back to the '70s. We used to tag school desks, each other's supplies and whatever with all sorts of stylized letters. This probably predates all of us. That doesn't make it notable, though. It's more a font character than "art" or "graffiti" or anything else. Definitely not "cool" because people the age of the editors' parents (probably grandparents) did this, and everyone knows nothing parents do is cool (nothing you'd like to think about, anyway). Unless we want an article for every letter in every font, this is going to be a delete. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - After the work inspired by this discussion, I think this is an article worth keeping. It describes a phenomenon of some significance with decent references, and I consider that it's doing no harm by staying here. Mortee (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2017 (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.