Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BIYC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BIYC
non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 04:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--MacRusgail 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable band --TBC
Did you actually read the article? They're not a band. They're a record label.
??? ??? ??? 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable record label, TBC. Royboycrashfan
06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Removed this point as it has been added to the page by another contributor. giginger
I've just edited the page to detail the ties to Grinning Ape. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ceri JC (talk • contribs).
BIYC is an important uprising in a very small genre of music that at anytime could break through with a new and wider audience. Things take time. The entire BIYC label is a playful jab at the very community that it caters to. It contains quality releases from a variety of artists for zero charge to help spread the music and knowledge of the artists contained in that very label.
The fact that wikipedia serves to document all things that exsist on a level that contains factual information it would make no sense to anyone in the know about said genre of music to disclude BIYC. That would just come down to sheer ignorance.
The fact is this label reaches numerous people and has quite the appeal due to its playful style and quality music from unsigned artists. I would know because i am one.
Signed Lucidikah —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucidikah (talk • contribs).
I would like to also cite that even if BIYC is for some (still unclear, given the numerous times it has been successfully defended) reason, seen to be "not notable", the reason why this is not harmful and shouldn't be deleted, from the [Notable] section of Wikipedia.
Obscure content isn't harmful Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.
There is no way, given the external links and sheer volume of work and material in them that you can claim the article is not "verifiable".
Likewise, many of the arguments for deleting it, even if you define it as non-notable do not apply:
Obscure topics do not attract editors Not enough Wikipedia users will take enough interest in your next-door neighbour's dog to ensure that the article is accurate, even if the information is theoretically verifiable.
I know from re-checking the page myself and seeing other people re-jigging it, putting better headings, additional links etc. in that there are multiple editors.
I believe the whole case of repeated requests for deletion (which have previously been successfully defended against) stem from the following two facts: 1. It has a "silly name". I'm sorry, I didn't make the record label, or have anything to do with the name. There are plenty of existing Wikipedia articles about labels, people, places, clubs etc. with "silly names". 2. The fact that I made the article as the synonymous user, "BIYC", suggests that this is a vanity article and that it should be my personal page, if it is on wikipedia at all. In hindsight, I should have chosen a different user name, if only to avoid these accusations/misunderstandings. For the record: BIYC is not my record label, I am merely a fan of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BIYC (talk • contribs).
If an encyclopedia, as per wikipedias own article is "a written compendium of knowledge," and knowledge (again as per wikipedias own article) is "information of which someone is aware" and the information in the BYIC article is information of which someone is aware, then surely the article must belong in wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia? I believe it is quite obvious that the information in the article, as it most likely has been written by someone, is information that this someone is aware of, which makes it information someone is aware of, which again makes it knowledge, and means it should be present in a written compendium of knowledge (or encyclopedia) which it seems quite clear to me that Wikipedia is.
- per nom? You're suggesting deletion on the basis of a name?
You're suggesting deletion on the basis of the name? Does that mean the word cunt shouldn't have an entry in Wikipedia? It exists so it's worth marking that for deletion too. giginger
- Bam In Your Cunt has a large following and is clearly notable, why do people want to delete this page? I haven't seen a good reason yet. The offensiveness of the name is unavoidable, thats what the record label is called! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jethro Escobar (talk • contribs).
Also, why does the name mean it should get a "Speedy Delete", rather than a normal one? Is it so offensive it doesn't even deserve the time for people to defend it? As has already been discussed;
1. That's the record label's name. I don't see how we can change the name of the Wikipedia entry; to do so would be factually inaccurate. Calling it "Bam in You ****" would not only be factually untrue, but also misleading; people may think the **** was part of the actual name of the label.
2. When dealing with factual matters, you cannot afford to be a prude. The age old argument applies: If people see the word and know what it means, they're already old enough to know what it means. If they don't, no harm done.
3. I'd be interested to hear why you think the name is a problem. Is someone going to accidentally type "Bam in your Cunt" in the search box, with no idea of what it means only suddenly to go to the article (which, incidentally, doesn't actually explain what a "Cunt" is, or contain any pictures of one) and in one fell swoop, lose their innocence?
4. If your justifcation is that a child may stumble on it by accident, when using the "random article" feature, I would refer you to points 3 and 5 and also the fact that there is only a 1 in 3700000 liklihood of this happening and in any event, there are plenty of other articles that are worse that I wouldn't want my children to see, hence me not letting them browse unsupervised.
5. We cannot refuse the article on the grounds that the title contains an obscenity; if we did there are many other articles, including the afformentioned one specifically about the word "Cunt" that should also be removed.
Incidentally, I'm getting a bit tired of defending the same facet half a dozen times to different people, so please READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AND THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION BEFORE POSTING A "REASON" WE'VE ALREADY COVERED AND ASCERTAINED IS NOT A PROBLEM.) Also, it would be nice if after accepting the justifaction or rebuttal, you came back and posted a retraction of your original request for delete, rather than sloping off and leaving the original post there untouched.
(Biyc)
Just so everyone has access to all the "discussion" that has gone on regarding this in the past, without needing to check individual people's "talk" areas, here's an abbreviated copy of a message sent to an admin (who subsequently dropped the matter) the first time people marked it for deletion.
==BIYC==
Hi,
I was wondering why you saw fit to delete the wikipedia page:
The record label the page references may be slightly satirical and have a tongue in cheek attitude, but it does exist and is both popular and successful in the area of music that it aims to cover. People have described it as the V/vm of netlabels. It has recieved critical praise from fields as diverse as Ninja Tune and "We are the Music Makers".
This isn't the bedroom project of a few stupid teenagers, visited solely by their friends; We have a large fan base and it's a legitimate project of at least as much validity as other small/indie record labels who have entries on Wiki. Quite why you deleted the entry for this label, yet still have entries for Mego and Merck, both of whom folded and one entry of which is a stub is unclear.
The article itself was informative, clearly written and free of S.P.A.G errors. Aside from giving away enough of the title that people old enough to know could work it out, it also had no content worth censoring.
I'm a moderator myself at XLTronic, so I know it is a nuisance responding to these sort of "why did you delete my.../ban me" posts, but in this instance I genuinely feel it is unjustified.
Incidentally, are there no guidelines on the frequency with with a page can be marked for deletion? In this case, the content has not changed significantly (certainly nothing that has been cited as grounds for deletion had been added), but after the first time it was successfully defended, within a matter of days, I'm having to defend it all over again (to a different set of people). Is there somewhere (ideally within wikipedia) I can store this discussion, so we can put a nice little neat link saying "Read this before marking this page for deletion" at the top?
Perhaps what annoys me most about this situation is that the time I could spend updating the entry and adding more information (ironically, further legitimising it and giving increased evidence that it is both notable and verifiable), is instead spent covering old ground justifying the pages' existance.
I apologise if this comes across as curt, but a large number of the detractors appear to have read neither the article or discussion regarding its deletion in full. (Biyc 14:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC))
User:AmiDaniel, I'm intrigued as to why you think the name is justified as grounds for deletion, when your personal page claims, "This user supports Wikipedians against censorship."
From the wikipedia article about this group [[1]]
"WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship was started on August 20, 2005 to coordinate efforts to oppose censorship on Wikipedia. It was started as a response to WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency which aimed to remove images and text on Wikipedia which its members considered "indecent". This WikiProject addresses censorship of materials which some may deem indecent or offensive, but which are nonetheless encyclopedic and appropriate in the context of Wikipedia."
Surely it is therefore hypocritical of you to object to the word "Cunt" in a title, (unless it's the, "Bam in Your" that you find offensive)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ceri JC (talk • contribs).
I would also like to point out that regardless which word he finds offensive in the article, he's being hypocritical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by anon (talk • contribs).
- 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.
