Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scally (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. John254 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
Article has been tagged for original research concerns for several months. No proper reliable inline referencing. Makes several sweeping unverified claims. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There seems little chance of this getting deleted and for good reason. If the article is somehow deficient, it needs fixing, not deleting.--Michig (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Several reliable sources say this is basically identical to chav, just a local variation in terminology. I think we need some strong sourcing for the differentiation, else merge. --Dhartung | Talk 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is certainly not Chav, the "chav" culture stems from imported hip hop and american sports wear. The sources link to a defined subculture whose interests in "casual" were gleaned from european fashion styles and pop music. The Bling was from Ratners not ebay. Mike33 - t@lk 08:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is going to be about regional terminology or actual distinct groups and this is a delete then we seriously have to consider deleting Ned (Scottish) which is less sourced than Scally and is basically identical to chav. Mike33 - t@lk 08:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article isn't verified, but is verifiable. Addhoc (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Michig. There may be a lack of sources, but the ones that are provided may be reliable, and verifiable should come with that. I don't see a serious problem with original research, maybe just stick {{cleanup-afd}} on the page, and see what happens. Rt. 11:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - In years to come, what happened in Liverpool in the 1970's will be seen as important to the 'evolution'- if I can call it that - of this working class / underclass. Therefore a page on it is important, and people like it. Scally and Chav are are different descriptions for different things - with a different history. This has all been debated before. The page is fine and has more references than a lot of other wikipedia pages.--Johncollinswork (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2007 (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.