Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seapunk

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. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seapunk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A neologism that doesn't seem to have wide currency. No reliable sources to show this is a widespread term. Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man i just started doing this and i have no idea how to do citations. This might not be a widespread term in your everyday use, but it is in mine and my community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinospartan117 (talk • contribs)

This discussion runs for seven days, so you have time to find the citations. The best place to start is by reading through Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, guidelines on reliable sources and guidelines on citing sources. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. This is a very, very recently coined term and as such, doesn't have anything that would be considered a reliable source. In response to Dinospartan117, a term, person, place, or item might be considered notable within a group of people, but that doesn't automatically mean it's notable enough to go onto Wikipedia. What's needed to prove notability are reliable sources. (See WP:RS for what's considered a reliable source.) Unfortunately I didn't find that when I did a search on this term. I found some blogs, youtube videos, and sources that would be considered trivial at best, but I didn't find anything reliable. A reliable source would be if Rolling Stone did an article on seapunk or if it was covered in a news article. That said, I think that it might be worth userfying (WP:USERFY) until Dinospartan117 can find enough reliable sources to flesh the term out. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2011 (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.