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. Seems like we have a consensus that notability guidelines are satisfied even if the article is currently unsourced. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Gay skinhead

Gay skinhead (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Article has no citations. Unclear that it discusses a recognized topic. No doubt there are skinheads who are gay, but how much scholarly literature is there that discusses "gay skinheads" as a specific topic? We cannot have an article about the subject if there is no significant literature about it. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 07:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 08:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 08:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep There are multiple reliable independent sources, e.g. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra ( talk) 11:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Even if an article could potentially be written about this topic, the article text as it stands is worthless. Someone who wanted to write an article would have to begin again from scratch. Note that your first and second links are actually to the same article, so that's only three sources in total. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 11:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, sorry. Here’s another one instead. There are any number more, as a search makes clear. I don’t think the existing article is a good candidate for WP:TNT. It’s fairly brief and to the point, and just needs inline citations. Nothing that ordinary editing can’t deal with. Mccapra ( talk) 13:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Literally every sentence is uncited, and there is no means of determining the factual accuracy of the material. Some of the material is written in an eyebrow-raising way ("Some are attracted to skinheads' outward displays of white masculinity") that might make one wonder about its neutrality. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 01:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. I'm going to spell out the excellent sources found by Mccapra, just to make life easier for other participants here. :)
  • " Gay Skinheads: Negotiating a Gay Identity in a Culture of Traditional Masculinity" by Kevin Borgeson and Robin Valeri, The Journal of Men's Studies (2015)
  • " All hyped up and no place to go" by David Bell, Jon Binnie, Julia Cream and Gil Valentine, Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography (1994)
  • " "Oi! Skins": Trans-Atlantic Gay Skinhead Discourse on the Internet" by James Haines, Intercultural Communication (1999)
  • " An Analysis of Skinhead Websites and Social Networks, A Decade Later" by Robin Maria Valeri, Nicole E. Sweazy and Kevin Borgeson, Michigan Sociological Review (2017)

That's four academic sources spanning more than two decades of academic research and discussion, directly about this subject. I also see an hour-long TV episode on the subject that aired in the UK in 1992. I agree that the current article is inadequate and unsourced, but WP:NEXIST says that notability is determined by the existence of reliable sources, not their use in the existing article. WP:ARTN says that poor writing does not decrease the subject's notability. There are clearly enough sources to demonstrate notability here. I added those links to the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use those sources. — Toughpigs ( talk) 15:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, Reliable sourcing exists, article needs regular editing to improve it, it was never a good candidate for deleting. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 19:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Article has been reliably sourced and just needs a bit of cleanup. 🌺Kori🌺 - ( @) 20:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Sources discussing gay skinheads have been linked to in this discussion, but that doesn't mean that the "Article has been reliably sourced"; no one has taken the trouble to add content based on those sources to the article, so as it stands it is still a totally uncited article. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 01:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notable topic per above and not bad enough for TNT imo. b uidh e 03:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This appears to be a notable enough topic. Many sources have been provided. While we clearly need more (and the article needs to be revamped), deletion totally seems to be the wrong call here. I'd also like to propose that we consider, as a separate discussion, renaming this to LGBTQ skinheads so that we can more clearly include information about bisexuals, transgender people regardless of orientation, and so on. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 10:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The only sources provided are those that discuss gay skinheads specifically. The article title should reflect what the sources actually state. I'll consider the nomination withdrawn at this point, in the absence of support for deletion. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 22:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:SNOW. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Bearian ( talk) 21:51, 17 April 2020 (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.