Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get back at your parents

: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. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[Get back at your parents]]=

:{{la|Get back at your parents}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get back at your parents}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Get back at your parents}})

Looks like an original essay, which breaches WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:NOTHOWTO -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

:PS: Article has had Speedy and Prod already challenged. Also, there's a slightly more encyclopedic treatment of the topic at Teenage rebellion -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - I can't think of anything to say that the nom hasn't already. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same here. — Rankiri (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:BLOG, also unreferenced (it just says titles of works but doesn't go in depth, and such references aren't substatuated any more than claims that [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EveryoneIsJesusInPurgatory Everyone Is Jesus In Purgatory]) --15.195.201.87 (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a well-planned essay, an instructive how-to guide, a well written, if evil, original work. I'm afraid that Wikipedia's administrators have to be uptight parents when it comes to policy. Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nominator's reason. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, and under the circumstances, I'd say {{tl|db-same}} for Teenage Rebellion. I'm the one who put the speedy and prod on the article in the first place, and if teenage rebellion is there to begin with, we should kill this with fire and reroute (nothing is substantially different here when you think of it). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Seriously? Snow delete. (I'm a little on the fence about Teenage rebellion though.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I declined the PROD because it was clear that the author was protesting its deletion. But this article has no place on Wikipedia. It's not a bad piece of original writing, but we don't host original thoughts or essays. I was planning on bringing this to AfD myself after declining the PROD. -- Atama頭 15:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and this article is original research. Edward321 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Stupid moves are as much a part of being a teen as acne. We see it in literature and in psychology. So why isn't there a list of these acts on Wikipedia?

This was never meant to be a how-to article. The title is meant as an attention-getter for teenagers. That may have been bad judgement on my part-- yhis saracastic title framed the way it is seen. A better title might allow the point and the purpose to come through.

It isn't meant to be original research-- what act of rebellion did I mention that hasn't been done and documented?

Each time an author uses one of these acts as if it were an original plot idea, and every time a teenager decides to color their hair purple, don't you think we show them a list somewhere that shows how they are not being original at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdichter (talk • contribs) 06:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC) The preceding comment was added by the page's creator. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Renaming the article to Acts of teen rebellion and experiementation (spelling error, btw - it's "experimentation" not "experiementation") doesn't change the fact that "will scare most parents", "may only work on conservative parents", "may only work on liberal parents", "Why this is important for parents" etc are all unsourced personal judgments which violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If there are any specific notable examples of behavior that can be supported by reliable sources (see WP:RS) and can be presented in an encyclopedia style (rather than a "teen magazine" style), then I think they should go in the existing Teenage rebellion article (which itself needs some rework). -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I see some of those comments have now been removed. However, splitting the article up into "The Classics", "The Wild Life", "The Counter-Counter-Culture", without any sourcing to support those categories being notable, is still WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Purpose section is pure personal opinion, and if you need the For writers and researchers section to explain yourself, that really just reinforces the "personal essay" nature of the article - a properly-sourced article on a notable topic would have no need of such a justification section -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not some plaything, besides, your article looks like a how-to-do and a list of things like this would be bad for Wikipedia. Enough said, the article's going to most likely get deleted. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT#ESSAY . — Satori Son 14:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

: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.