Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Gothic


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Corporate Gothic

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD; this article violates WP:NFT and WP:NEO, probably violates WP:NOR, and may additionally violate WP:SOAP and WP:IINFO. Article was previously deleted by WP:CSD as a group that doesn't assert notability. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 neologisms from origin 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 community in the states, calling themself CorpGoth. --78.22.1.50 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)--CorpGoth (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is only a sugestion? --78.22.1.50 (talk) 16:43, 29 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.
 * No, we wouldn't need to delete any other articles than this one, considering WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been reading WP: OTHERSTUFEXISTS. I must say I am quite fascinated by the pokemon test. Because it is actually quite simular to the problem we are facing here. You have to know, at the moment there are -inside the Gothic scene- about 21 stereotypes. Some of them, like The Victorian Goth and The Metalhead (from origine not even a Goth...) are very well documentend. Others like The Cabaret Goth or The Corp Goth we are discussing here, are -in relation to mainstream- rather rare. I -as a simple guest- think it would be a good idea if we would make a list with 'The Gothic Stereotypes'. In stead of waiting for new references to Corp Goth, to enlarge the artikle, we can simplifie it and place it on one single page amon with its 20 brothers and sisters. I would say, the wiki version of this: http://www.blackwaterfall.com/viewall.php


 * Keep. Article is about a style of fashion that exists in the world, not an organization.  Seems like the sort of thing WP should try to cover, and sources could be found.  Try back issues of the "style" section of New York Times Magazine or various British newspapers. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, the A7 deletion may have been a mistake, but I disagree that the article passes WP:NOT and WP:N generally. The only source currently in the article that passes WP:RS would be the NYT article, which mentions the term "corp-goth" once, and in the context of a company's product line. There are one or two other mentions and a smattering of cursory mentions in other mainstream media. The argument here would be whether these constitute "multiple significant" mentions. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Would a company produce a "product line" if the style of fashion and/or life style did not exist? I am sure somewhere amongst all the GHits and the few GNewsHits there are reliable sources. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 211 ghits and 5 news hits isn't very reassuring. This looks like a niche group that lies right on the border of notability. I think it's not quite across it yet. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may not think so, but I do. And seeing as WP:V is a satisfied policy, and WP:N is only a movable guideline, I think we should give it a chance. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as it verified to be a real style by reliable sources. However it needs to work a bit on the OR and add more sources. Merge could be an option. // Liftarn (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (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.