Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy*d Upp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, then redirect to Jamie_Kane. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boy*d Upp

Important Note MattC, the original creator of the articles, has apologised over them. They were not a part of any official BBC campaign, and simply a 'it seemed a good idea at the time' moment by an employee. Please don't write angry e-mails to the BBC over this. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign.--Barberio 08:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Since sanity is evidently scarce here, I ought to point out that the BoingBoing article makes no accusations, and cites no concrete evidence that this is actually an "advertising campaign" at all. It is merely a suspicion, which is why the headline ends with a question mark. Did you not get taught at school the difference between a question and a statement? Consequently I don't understand how you've rationalized this sudden jump from BoingBoing's premise...
"This page might be an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign"
...to the logically distinct premise...
"This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign".
I also suggest that any other sheepy votes based solely on Barberio's bogus reasoning, and shameless scaremongering, should be discounted.
You should also be aware that you are, in effect, creating a viral advertising campaign for the BoingBoing site amongst readers of this page. Perhaps we should confirm that Barberio isn't an employee of the BoingBoing site? :)
However, it is far more likely that the BoingBoing site launched a public attack on the BBC in the hopes of provoking the BBC into publicly striking back at them, with the hopes of exploiting the BBC's far wider audience as a means to gain more publicity for itself, thus increasing its potential advertising revenues.
Same applies to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane - Aya 42 T C 20:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Um... Well, not entirely sure why trying to make a personal attack against me is relevent here? Not entirely sure if you are supporting deletion or keeping either.
The original creator of these articles, a BBC employee, has said that he did not have official sanction on creating them, and has apologised for doing so. Can I suggest that instead of whipping up BoingBoing Vs BBC arguments, we just accept the apology, and quietly progress to the deletion of these articles. We don't want to make it hard on the guy for an honest mistake by turning it into a big argument. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. There was a smiley face after one of the paragraphs to indicate it was semi-humorous, but be careful when writing things like you did just there. People tend to believe you whether you're right or not. - Aya 42 T C 01:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
User:MattC only created the boy-band article. The original article was created by someone who is not necessarily affiliated with the BBC. RichW 18:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, please. The BBC and BoingBoing are both pretty well-known to much of the Wikipedia audience, and neither of them particularly needs this kind of stunt for publicity. Instead of responding to speculation with more irresponsible speculation, might I remind people that assuming good faith is a principle that can be applied to people outside Wikipedia as well. --Michael Snow 00:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. I've never heard of BoingBoing before. - Aya 42 T C 01:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlike the now edited JK article this is really useless. Boris SDC 12:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, letting advertising onto wikipedia will destroy all that is good about wikipedia. Bigtoe 16:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Real or not, this is stupid. --Hoovernj 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Useless blatent advertising AviN456 14:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete See the BoingBoing article on these entries. [1] --Barberio 08:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable fictional band. Kappa 08:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree, this is not a major or notable fictional band, and the articles intent is to promote a new work of fiction, not record an established one. --Barberio 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons as Barberio above. --Stereo 09:02:29, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, document it is a game/ad, as an early warning for the other users. --Shaddack 09:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I echo Barberio also. Viral marketing on Wikipedia shouldn't be tolerated. --taliswolf 09:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It'll work so much better as a warning. / Peter Isotalo 10:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Like its fictional bandmember above, this "band" is apparently faintly notable. With an appropriate commentary (or tag?), this could provide material for marketing research.
  • Delete per Barberio. Nandesuka 12:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Erwin Walsh
  • Delete Spliced 13:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --*drew 14:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable. If anyone wants to merge with Viral marketing that's okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 14:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Ben Houston 15:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Barberio above. Dottore So 16:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Misuse of Wikipedia. This is just spamvertising in a different form. android79 16:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Jamie Kane given Uncle G's excellent rewrite of that article. android79 12:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment To appease the people who want to keep, can I suggest that we redirect this, and any other attempts at Viral Marketing to the Viral marketing article. Or a new meta article 'Abuses of Wikipedia for Viral Marketing'. --Barberio 16:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notable are they not. And I specifically oppose the redirect suggestion. -Splash 16:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Although Uncle G's work on the related article is admirable, my vote above stands since I'm not yet persuaded of the case for keeping the possible redirect target. -Splash 01:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the content is worth keeping, then it should be moved to a page about the game. But aside from abusing Wikipedia, I'm not sure the game is, as yet, notable. --William Pietri 16:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Viral marketing is not an acceptable use of wikipedia resources. --GraemeL 16:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and block the offender indefinitely, including the IP address space of the BBC, until a formal apology is made. This is nothing more or less than vandalism for profit. Wikipedia should come down hard on those responsible. --FOo 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The IP address does indeed come from the BBC :[2]. I suppose this is just some summer student being clever or something? Surely the Beeb is tech-savvy enough to know that we can work out if they added the article! -Splash 17:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • This is exactly why Wikipedia needs to make it absolutely clear that this behavior is not considered funny, positive, or even acceptable. It is spam and vandalism; it is against the rules; and it is a blocking offense. In this case, because it's being done for the benefit of a widely-known organization, it's also an excellent opportunity to make an example -- to show that Wikipedia will refuse to put up with for-profit abuse. --FOo 17:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • True, to WP:AN/I perhaps? I suspect, however, that a mere admin is unlikely to want to admonish the BBC; perhaps the Foundation should. -Splash 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
          • "admonish the BBC"?? Because somebody wrote three sentences on Wikipedia during his coffee break? Hello? It's not like this is a concerted attack on our foundation principles. It is even a great example of how such an approach backfires on Wikipedia, where people can now read that the band is fictional. dab (ᛏ) 18:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable advertising. If and only if this viral marketing campaign becomes notable in and of itself (like, for example, I love bees or The Subservient Chicken) give it an article. As it stands now, it is a misuse of Wikipedia. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Jamie Kane in light of Uncle G's edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — WCityMike (T | C) 17:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So we're supposed to keep it as notable based upon the fact that someone trolled Wikipedia? How come we don't ever keep other trolled articles then? E.g, Mother Fucker was an attempt by an unknown Indonesian male to put spam on Wikipedia. It took place in July of 2002. The police have no further leads! External links: http://www.motherfuckerswikipedia.com/. Come on, this is just silly. D. G. 17:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to viral marketing. Should this turn out as something notable, revert to independent article. dab (ᛏ) 18:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a run-of-the-mill viral marketing incident, it did not achieve notability. Don't delete it to "send a message"; delete it because it's not noteworthy. -- Curps 19:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. Noisy | Talk 19:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable.  Grue  19:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the guerrilla marketing aspects have been explained. Zoe 21:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)Since several users keep deleting the viral marketing aspects, this makes the article no longer notable. Delete. Zoe 23:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as an example of viral marketing by the BBC, and merge the Jamie Kane stuff into this article. I've removed the self reference to make it suitable for our mirror sites. Thryduulf 21:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • redirect to Jamie Kane following the rewrite of that article. Thryduulf 09:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Jamie Kane. However, revert 'guerilla marketing' aspects as hopelessly POV. Almafeta 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I created the Boy*D_Upp page from inside the BBC network on Friday evening after stumbling across the Jamie Kane entry linked from the Pop Justice forums. My action was in no way part of an orchestrated marketing campaign on behalf of the Jamie Kane project team nor was it intended for my page to be attributed to the BBC, which has been implied. It was nothing more than common garden vandalism for which I am sorry. MattC 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable and advertising -- I'm sure they've already got their interest boost from this little fuss, though they might want to think over what damage has been done to their reputation. - Motor (talk) 23:16:53, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. -- The Anome 22:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Abuse of Wikipedia. -- Arwel 22:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If some actual article about the campaign/project/hoax emerges, redirecting there would also be an acceptable alternative. --Michael Snow 22:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This marker represents the point where Uncle G rewrote the associated Jamie Kane article

  • Delete. Wikipedia's response to being hijacked (by anyone) as part of "viral marketing" should be: "No thank you". - Nunh-huh 23:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane, which appears to contain a better explanation of what's going on. --Alan Au 00:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That is, if the Jamie Kane page survives its own VfD. Otherwise, delete. --Alan Au 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As stated in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jamie Kane, this purported band is entirely fictional, and thus fails WP:MUSIC utterly. As per WP:FICT, this should be a redirect to Jamie Kane, which is now an article about the alternate reality game by the BBC by that name, which includes this finctional band name as part of its storyline. Uncle G 00:33:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Jamie Kane. --Andre (talk) 01:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete* People like this should be sterilized to avoid futher pollution of the gene pool.
  • Delete* Pointless advertising.
  • Delete or redirect to Jamie Kane. --Parallel or Together? 10:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Jamie Kane. David | Talk 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane, for the reasons stated above. --Jdcope 11:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane --WS 11:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Abusive marketing practice.
  • Merge and redirect with/to Jamie Kane. ed g2s • talk 13:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or redirect I'm not sure the actual game deserves an entry, but certainly this shouldn't be one at this point. If the game catches on and becomes hugely popular, then fine, but at this early stage, it shouldn't be an article. (My vote on Jamie Kane was it could be included in a larger article about online games.) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 14:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect To the Jamie Kane article, which explains things fully. Mark Williamson 14:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. AnthonySorace 15:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising.
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane — ciphergoth 15:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane Daemon8666 15:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane --nwatson 15:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Redirect to Jamie Kane. Kaldari 16:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. WAS 4.250 16:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The whole matter sets a bad precedent, delete it. If necessary, create a new article for the game. -- 66.159.216.215 16:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane -Eisnel 16:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - to Jamie Kane or whatever the original article was as long as the Jamie Kane article reflects the controversy and fictious origins of this - same for all similar pages. Move for admins to speedily convert this over to end controversy. - Master Of Ninja 16:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane, SqueakBox 16:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. bpt 17:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. RichW 18:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. —Wanion 21:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect or delete I second Alan Au, redirect if Jamie Kane survived, delete if not. obo 21:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. feydey 00:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable; unlikely to be searched for and not enough msterial outside of what is already covered in Jamie Kane. mholland 02:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with and Redirect to Jamie Kane. (Merge [3] version) Tenbaset 08:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete then redirect to avoid keeping history but block future recreation Mozzerati 21:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • "delete" Block BBC to use wiki, that way the BBC wont be able to acidently on purpose create advertising, then blame a sheepgoat when caught. 84.13.141.203 04:36, 19 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.