- 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. Recreating as a protected redirect to scene (fashion). Sandstein (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Scenesters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (View log)
Article is a train wreck of spam, flames, and vandalism. Was nominated before, but template was removed and replaced with a spammy talk page style message. Almost seems like more of a message board than an article. -- TRTX T / C 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Vandalism. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: spam and vandalism. Kill it with fire. 134.173.59.5 (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've declined speedy deletion per G3 because the initial version did not look like vandalism. BTW, there are quite a few GHits for the term. And why would this be the second nomination. It was initially tagged as proposed deletion and there is no previous AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my first attempt at an AfD, so I was following the process as best I understood it. It looks in the history like the first nomination was deleted improperly, and I'm wondering if whoever deleted it wasn't sure how to go through the proper process. -- TRTX T / C 12:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first tag was for a Proposed deletion which can be removed by anyone who wnat to contest the deletion upon which it is the right thing to list here so that consensus can be obtained I've now fixed (with help of Cenarium) the name and links of this page so that it reflects that it is the first deletion discussion. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral it could be argued that "Scenester" is a sufficiently notable neologism, but the article as it stood was trash. I stubbed it. One possible solution would be to redirect to Scene (fashion), not that that page is in a terribly good state either. -Verdatum (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Children should be scene and not heard. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if this article weren't a trainwreck (which it is) it would be more suited for Wiktionary (if they would have it). Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the multiple-times-deleted Scenester related? (log and related AfD). Either way, delete; "scenester" would probably be a valid redirect to Scene (fashion), but the plural form doesn't seem as useful as a search term. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT.-- danntm T C 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The vandalism that formerly made up this article is now gone, but all that is left is a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; also, the article that it directs to, scene is itself a terrible mess of OR and rediculously unreliable sources that is in dire need of deletion. I feel like a tourist (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.