Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seapunk (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Seapunk
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Flash in the pan fad with questionable notability, deleted once already. Several sources used in the article are of questionable quality as well.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Notability questionable but there was coverage in a number of mainstream news publications, those particular references are usable.  Semitransgenic  talk. 13:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nice deal of source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. My goodness.  How many reliable independent secondary sources does anyone need?  I stopped counting after  the Chicago Reader, the Village Voice and the New York Times.  (It's in the NYT and we're debating notability?)  Msnicki (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. A large number of independent reliable sources provide extensive coverage about the subject, easily meeting general notability standards. I think the article is poor structured, and seems almost like it was written with the goal of cramming in a different source for almost every sentence, rather than to explain the topic, but that's a different issue. (Note for editors: reliable sources on a subject do not need to be included in an article to establish notability; they merely need to exist, and can be listed on a Talk or AfD page if questions of notability arise.) Per nominator's other deletion rationales:
 * 1) Flash in the pan: While single events may not warrant articles (see WP:ONEEVENT), fads that extend for months or years are not like single events, and just the cited sources in the article indicate span 11 months. Seapunk is still mentioned regularly in the news; Google News shows 16 occurrences in the last month, including eight in English (including US, UK and Australian media), six in French (including Canadian and French media), one in Arabic, and one in Turkish. While these are mostly trivial references, as a description of colors or appearances, some are not, and even the trivial references are indicative of its lasting cultural notability (in the generic dictionary sense, not in the Wikipedia sense).
 * 2) Deleted once already: The previous AfD was in 2011, before any of the references cited in this article were published, and the single opinion given was that it was a very recent movement not covered by any reliable sources, which seems like it was accurate in 2011.
 * 3) Some sources questionable: While some of the sources cited in the article may be questionable, the AfD guideline section at WP:BEFORE says "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." You can challenge sources as not reliable, and information not supported by reliable sources.
 * --Agyle (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not anyone's job who sends an article to AFD who feels that the article has no merits to fix it. I don't know why this is constantly brought up like it's a requirement that the nominator have tried to clean the page before deciding "this doesn't belong on Wikipedia". Seapunk was a 3 month thing at best. A "microtrend" does not get a Wikipedia article no more than any of the memes that we apparently document.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 23:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest the nominator should clean it up, merely that issues which can be fixed through normal editing are not grounds for deletion. Since you did list a fixable issue as a reason for the nomination, it warranted repeating. Notability is a grounds for deletion, and you mentioned that as a reason too, but I think that was the only reasonable basis; microtrends, memes, and fads may or may not be notable. Agyle (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to, The New York Times, The Guardian and Chicago Reader. NorthAmerica1000 02:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, it was clearly a short lived movement, but as we have a source published a while later indicating it had influence on mainstream culture (the Guardian link at the end), we should have an article. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 23:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wouldn't have created an article on this, but it seems like a valid article to me.  I guess the old adage that notability isn't temporary applies here.  I don't think Wikipedia exists to catalog every minor fad, but when The New York Times writes an article on it, it's not easy to argue that the topic is non-notable.  With no real notability guideline for fads, memes, or internet culture, we default to the GNG, and this does seem to satisfy the requirements. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But surely, fads like these should be the epitome of things that Wikipedia should not cover. Everything that becomes popular for like a month online gets covered by mainstream media because they've got fuck all to talk about otherwise.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One would think so, but it's still getting coverage in 2014: Sydney Morning Herald. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One paragraph though.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:41, 24 June 2014 (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.