Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gino


 * 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, fails WP:V --- Deville (Talk) 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Gino
This article, when stripped of its original research (which is 95% of the current content) will be nothing more than a dictionary definition of a slang term, which itself has an unclear definition. Hamiltonian 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm pretty sure you could write a pretty decent article on the subject (this isn't it, though). There's a lot of editorialising, but that's not really AfD's concerned.  That it's unsourced is, howe'er. WilyD 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The term Gino is used in exactly the same context as the term Goth. Keep.


 * Keep I totally disagree. While the article needs cleanup, the term 'gino' is *not* simply a slang term.  It is representative of a sub-culture in the cities mentioned.  For example, if "goth" can be an entry, than "Gino" cannot be deleted.  I don't know how one takes it off deletion, but I am totally against it.  The problem is on the "original research" clause, but don't know how to get around that, I could edit it myself but wouldn't have a published source.  Posted 5 September 2006
 * My problem with the article, for the record, is not anything other than the "original research" problem. --Hamiltonian 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless you can find reliable sources to get the article past the ultimate criterion of verifiability, it will be deleted no matter what you do. If you introduce reliable sources into it, give it a bit of a POV scrubbing, then the outcome of this discussion will most likely be keep.  The problem with the article is that it is fraught with original research which is a big no-no.  If it can be fixed, it'll be kept.  If not, deleted.  But if it's deleted you can always recreate it at a later time once you've found reliable sources (which I'm sure exist).  WilyD 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anecdotally speaking, much of this article is true. This is one of the major sub cultures in Toronto. I do not think it warrants deletion. Obviously, it needs cleaning up. However, this is not just slang, but a real cultural phenomenon. Nlsanand 18:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As another buddy from taurrana, I agree with you that it's mostly true (though with heavy editorialising). But unsourced, unverifiable articles can't be kept just because they're true.  That is policy WilyD 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as it is a real phenomenon (I've heard of it even in the US thanks to the internets). But the OR needs to go. Find some sources and write a decent stub.
 * Delete This information, although popular in the local area, is not verifiable. There is no historical content (that's verified) or any references what so ever. --Zandarx talk 04:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If anyone from the area knows it is true, why should it be verified. The OR could be limited through the use of words such "generally thought of", thereby no longer requiring deletion. This requirement for cold hard facts on a social phenomenom is not really fair and is limiting the ability of Wikipedia to meet user needs. Sources should not be required for something that is obvious. Nlsanand 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That reasoning is spread between WP:V and WP:OR. Sourcing is required for everything. WilyD 11:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:48, 10 September 2006 (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.