Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK underground

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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK underground

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

The UK underground scene has changed over the years and will mean different things to different people. "UK underground" or "UK underground scene" is an attractive proposition for an article, but as the term can be used to refer to different things at different times, depending on the speaker, it cannot be used in the same way that Beatnik or Hippie or Madchester is used. It is too vague. It may refer to graffiti artists, hip-hop or garage music, or the Punk scene. The material in the article appears to be contentious speculation on a loose term that has not been clearly defined by a reliable source and so requires a bit of original research to pull together mentions of the term and try to make something out of it. While there are aspects within the article that are notable - such as the underground press, psychedelic music, etc - pulling together these elements into a cohesive article is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS. SilkTork *^YES! 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a content dispute. Proper coverage can be discussed on the article talk page. This is no more SYN that any other general article about a period , but it would help to have some refs talking about it in a general way. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG said it correctly, there is plenty here to work with and improvements to the text, expansion of the wider social context and more specifics as well as more refs will help...Modernist (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (ec x 2) The term is an established historical usage for a specific cultural movement, which was active approximately mid 1960s - mid 1970s. Numerous sources, both contemporaneous and subsequent, use it in this way, e.g. the recent Tate gallery book, Summer of Love.[1] It has a distinct identity: The underground or alternative society – and the term was used widely, unselfconsciously and proudly – of the Sixties was an international phenomenon.The Independent (2002) Wikipedia follows established usage and to not do so is original research. It has also been used to refer to other activities at different times, but that does not invalidate this usage. Tony Elliott specifically differentiates its earlier from its later usage.[2] When this happens, the solution is to disambiguate, not to delete. The article is not "contentious speculation" or WP:SYNTHESIS, as the various elements that are present in it are referred to by the sources as part of this movement, e.g. Floyd were the official group of the underground. The bible of the underground was the International Times, the meeting point of the underground became the UFO club.The Guardian (2006) Release, an underground organisation[3] the Arts Lab ... was an "epicentre" of the underground scene.[4] At the time of the nom, there were 28 references listed on the article talk page,[5] and a reading of these clearly establishes the legitimacy of the article content. It is standard editing practice to combine information from different sources which address the same subject in order to create a comprehensive article about that subject. Ty 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with DGG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace4545 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is necessarily of high importance culturally, not only in Britain but because of the UK Underground's prominent (historically and currently) role in the international scene. If the article has shortcomings that need rectifying, it should be fixed ... else that applies to 2/3 of WP content. No doubt there are those who'd rather see WP get all high-minded and stuffy, but this sort of thing is of real flesh-and-blood interest to a huge chunk of Earth's creative citizenry. The very idea of eliminating such things is dangerous to the very concept of WP itself. Twang (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: important article on key aspect of 1960s/70s UK culture. Important to note that various strands - music, magazines, festivals, drug culture etc. etc. - were totally intertwined in a single cohesive movement at the time. Article title may need to be made more time-specific, and article certainly needs improving. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2009 (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.