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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gutter punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The page does not adhere to a neutral Point of View. Efforts to remedy this have been blocked, and reliable sources of a neutral point of view cannot be found. Currently, "sourced" information was about runaways (not gutter punks), and the other article was an obviously biased article. Until such ethnographies of Gutter Punk culture have been formulated and collected by reliable sources from a neutral point of view, including the ideologies of those that practice Gutter Punk culture as a counter-cultural and sustainable lifestyle, the article should be deleted.Gstridsigne (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the reasons addressed above, and for the lack of useful and accurate information within the article itself. The biased point of view of the article is from an outsider perspective, and having worked with such individuals, the article is completely false and fails to address the ideology and point of view of individuals who participate in this lifestyle due to moral beliefs. Also, it is likely that this ethnography may never be collected due to the reluctance of Gutter Punks to participate in such data collection, preferring a more simple lifestyle and eschewing governmental and academic study.Gstridsigne (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your nomination was your vote. I have struck out your second vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do apologize. Thank you for the information and for adjusting my entry. Gstridsigne (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - AfD is not for cleanup. The two sources the nominator mentions are the two they removed: Chapman, Ben and Elizabeth Hays. (NY) Daily New, July 14, 2009. "Punks invade Williamsburg as heroin-addicted hobos set up shop in trendy Brooklyn neighborhood" is the "biased" one. The other is LeDuff, Charlie. The New York Times, September 21, 1997. "MAKING IT WORK; Runaway Girl" is "about runaways (not gutter punks)". I don't see bias in the first and second is about a runaway's "gutter punk life". Other sources available: DNAinfo Chicago "Traveling 'Gutter Punk' Homeless Back in City"; The Daily Californian "Ex-'Gutter Punk' Tells All"; Antigravity "Everyone Hates the Oogles: Exploring the animosity towards New Orleans’ panhandling punks"; New York magazine "Punk Like Them"; Journal of Psychoactive Drugs "Psychosocial Histories, Social Environment, and the HIV Risk Behaviors of Injection and Noninjection Drug Using Homeless Youths" (doi: 10.1080/02791072.1998.10399665); American Behavioral Scientist "Homelessness and the Politics of Social Exclusion" (doi: 10.1177/0002764204274192) and Substance Use & Misuse "Incidence and Predictors of Onset of Injection Drug Use in a San Francisco Cohort of Homeless Youth" (doi: 10.3109/10826080902865271). - SummerPhD (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might not fully understand your argument. Are you trying to say that I nominated this article for deletion because the passage and sources that I had previously deleted and you reversed should be removed, as if I am arguing that the page should stay with those edits? Do you mind clarifying? Because if that is what you are saying, that is not the case. I am saying the entire article should be deleted, not just the information within it. In many ways, other articles such as Crusties, Anarcho-punk, and Anarcho-Primitivism more accurately reflect the nature of Gutter Punks, even if they are not necessarily the "same thing." All of these pages do have a more neutral point of view, and Gutter Punks are very similar ideologically and politically to these other counter cultural movements, if not a slight deviation from these movements. Additionally, Wikipedia:DEL-REASON's 6 since not much reliable information exists about the counter-cultural movement, and possibly 8 since it may not adhere to the General Notability Guideline's first criteria: "significant coverage." Lastly, even before my edits, there were a total of 10 sentences about the movement, hardly enough to warrant notability for an article. I also do not see the merit of expanding the article, given the lack of reliable and neutral articles on the subject.Gstridsigne (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reviewed the articles and journal entries that you have proposed. The ones from The Daily Californian and Antigravity seem to come from a more neutral to punk-friendly perspective, and along with the more negative article could eliminate the perspective issues. However, even with these articles it still does not provide enough information to warrant an entire article. The three journal entries about addiction in homeless youth speak about addiction in general in punk culture, and not in Gutter punk culture specifically.Gstridsigne (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that you feel the two sources are not acceptable and the article should be deleted. Yes, many of the sources say what are generally interpreted as negative things about gutter punks. This is not "bias". Yes, there are many attributes that are usually seen as negative that the sources say apply to gutter punks. The sources, however, arereliable so the information is verifiable. Our articles about various dictators, diseases, mass murderers, toxins, etc. are very heavily slanted toward undisputedly negative attributes. That's not "bias", that's reporting facts. From my own work, I am well aware that the homeless (which I am NOT saying are synonymous with gutter punks, though there's a lot of overlap) are disproportionately LGBT, unemployed, mentally ill, ATOD addicted, have criminal records, are members of racial and/or ethnic minorities, etc. Some of those are seen as negative, others as neutral. That's not "bias", that's reporting facts. IMO, independent reliable sources provide significant coverage to the subject. That the article is currently short, poorly sourced or otherwise deficient does not alter the fact that the subject is notable and we have sufficient coverage available. AfD is not for clean up. Editing is for clean up. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:N. In addition to the many sources posted above by User:SummerPhD, there's also:

• Tearing Down the Streets: Adventures in Urban Anarchy. pp. 46-47.
• My World: Ramblings of an Aging Gutter Punk. 191 pages.
• "Are Gutter Punk Youth Satisfied with Homeless Services in Berkeley, California?" California State University. 128 pages.
• "There's not a lot of love in the Haight". Los Angeles Times.
• "Young Anger Is Gathering On The Streets -- Gutter Punks Reject Mainstream In U.S. As Inane, Hypocritical". The Seattle Times (originally published in Washington Post).

 – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 30 April 2014 (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.