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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hessian (social group)

[edit]

Contested prod. This is just a reincarnation of the infamous ANUS article under a different name. Non-notable organisation, Original research, and very POV. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spearhead (talk • contribs)

This article was deleted before for plagiarizing this: [1]. I've also seen this article describe a type of skateboarder. Given the contested nature of the subject, its rather fuzzy description, and POV issues. I think Delete Steve-g 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unattributed to reliable sources, and unlikely to soon be (see talk page). Sandstein 12:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - little to no assertion of notability, no reliable sources cited to support notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I've found 1600 G-hits of "hessian" + "metalhead," and a cursory look over some of the links indicates that the term's in wide vogue in the metalhead community. The article itself is a turgid, scanty mess desperately in need of genuine definition and sourcing, but that's what the Pages needing attention list is for. RGTraynor 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Traynor and WP:NON. --Slg r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another NN and NA. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. As per RGTraynor. I think this term was once as widespread as hipster is now, though referring to different people. The sources available for any part of popular culture won't be the same as those for something academic, but I don't know what they would be. If someone can find them, I think an article on this belongs here.--Parsleyjones 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources--Sefringle 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is an example of an episteme constructed by the crowd. As such, it praises that which is acceptable to the masses, and spurns that which is anathema. The 'knowledge' portrayed on this site is not a set of facts in one-one correspondence with reality, but rather a set of opinions which represent the current status quo in society. There is no need for this article, or those whom it claims to describe, to be on Wikipedia. To understand why, see this.--41.243.210.79 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. The comment on the article's talk page (that members of the group are the sources) does not particularly inspire confidence that the article's content is attributable. -- Black Falcon 21:05, 18 March 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.