Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gate crashing


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Editors remain divided after two relists: keep arguments point to ample present references, while delete arguments argue that despite the references, the amount of encyclopedic content does not amount to more than a dictionary definition. signed,Rosguill talk 04:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Gate crashing

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Seems like a pretty clear case of DICDEF to me: note, in the history, the usual celebrity mentions of gate crashers, but these incidents cannot elevate this to an encyclopedic topic. Nor, of course, is there serious discussion of the concept as a term, and it is thus not an encyclopedic topic. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems fine. I had to double-check WP:DICDEF but I don't see anything there that would seem to apply to this article. The citations in the article, which include several articles specifically devoted to gatecrashing, are probably ample to demonstrate notability. But just in case, here are some more: Gatecrashing: an exploration of community attitudes and experiences (contains considerable background on gatecrashing at outdoor music festivals), Gate-Crashing the Stage (1934 reflections of an actor on the importance of [individual] gatecrashing for one's career), Swarming and the social dynamics of group violence (criminological study of group gatecrashing and related phenomena), 'Ducktails, Flick-knives and Pugnacity' (sociological study discussing group gatecrashing as a form of antisocial gang activity in postwar South Africa). The phenomenon of organized gatecrashing at OMFs in particular seems to have attracted a lot of attention in the popular press, e.g. . The heavy use of gatecrashing as a metaphor makes for difficult searching, but there is definitely ample coverage of actual non-metaphorical gatecrashing to support an encyclopedic article on the subject. -- Visviva (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has many important references, and the issue itself is already a part of culture, so meet GNG--Wyndhan Han (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The original draft is better than the current article and as references.  But, would this run afoul of Wikipedia is not a Dictionary WP:NOTDICTIONARY? Denaar (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, took some time to read and research criteria. I don't believe "list of gate crashing events" would be notable either. Denaar (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The references to NOTDICTIONARY are bewildering to me. This is a documented social phenomenon, the subject of multiple RSs that I have linked to in this discussion. I wonder if anyone can explain the dictionary objection? -- Visviva (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My reasoning (not wanting to speak for others) is that it just flatly defines a term, without adding any other nuance or context. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point that I hadn't considered: while notability does not depend on article content, unencyclopedicity arguably does. (I would still argue that for deletion to be justified an article would need to be irredeemably unencyclopedic, which is not the case here, but I guess the better outcome is simply for me to depart from my no-ransom rule and do some work on the article.) -- Visviva (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Eh. There look to be enough sourcing to satisfy GNG (and there was more than just a definition immediately before this was nominated), but I don't know what would be appropriate content for such an article (and I'm not advocating restoring the removed content). A lot of the sources are anecdotes and how-tos, which have limited value here. Erring on the side of keeping because it's such a well known phenomenon. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:17, 11 July 2023 (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.