Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk ideology


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. Even discarding the obvious ballot stuffing votes, there is a considerable majority towards keeping. So therefore it looks like this article should be kept this time. J I P | Talk 07:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Punk ideology


Inherantly Non-NOPV. Article reads as compeletly origional research and is lacking any citation what so ever. Article has already been tagged as representing a narrow viewpoint. I say it should be deleted entirely, maybe severly trimmed and merged to the article on punk. But there is no reason that this deserves its own entry. Tombride 17:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Punk deserves more respect and this page is a good contribution.
 * Keep and probably merge with Punk culture. It seems like this is all wrapped up in the subculture of punk and since we have 100s of articles at category:subcultures, I don't see any reason to discriminate against punks. -- JJay 18:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above Bertilvidet 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and merge with Punk culture and DIY punk ethic. Oldelpaso 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Brian G. Crawford 22:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep--It works. Ecto 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment--Song lyrics could count as sources, plus there have been a few books written on the subject. Finding sources should be no problem. The narrow viewpoint tag requests expansion, not deletion, so that is no reason for the article to be deleted. DIY punk ethic and Punk culture are no longer articles. Merging in DIY ethic would be best. There would not be room in Punk for the detail this topic needs. It should remain in its own article. Ecto 08:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It used to references a few sources including a book called "The Philosophy of Punk" which I have read (no idea why it was removed, I'm going to put it back in now). The book supports most of the ideas presented in the article. It's not original research. The Ungovernable Force 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep--I'm reading it. 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep--I read it all the time so do my friends. 09:32, 29 March 2006 (utc)
 * Keep--Im reading it!
 * Keep--I come here all the time and I think it well deserves to stay. Kenny 22:20, 31 March 2006
 * KEEP-I LOVE THIS PAGE if you have to merge it somewhere
 * Keep Punk ideology deserves its own page. &mdash;RJN 20:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is full of useful information to anybody interested in the punk subculture and which bands have a deeper meaning than the average band. I have learned more than I can mention thanks to this page and link people frequently.
 * KEEP There are too many misconceptions about what punk is in our world, and I think that any non-punk, or even a punk for that matter could learn alot just by reading that page. Please don't ignore this important part of our culture. Rachel April 4 2006


 * 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.