Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YTCracker (4th nomination)
- 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ytcracker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As mentioned in the previous 3 AfD's this article is clear self promotion(however, impressive) and continues to violate WP:Music as well as Neutral Point Of View. The substantial edits by "ytcracker" himself and his extreme involvement of every edit made support this. The discussion for this article also clearly shows the article was created by "ytcracker" himself. I don't feel the page is noteworthy for any reason other than to support a "nerdcore" career(which is certainly not noteworthy in any way, to say the least.)
Please see the previous nominations filled with "ytcracker" fighting for his article:
In addition, "nerdcore" is self created term which appears to have been created by "ytcracker" for the purpose of self promotion. His contributions on the "nerdcore" article support this. "i'm just a godfather get over it. i'm glad it's "apparant" arguing with me is futile." he states. Further, the "Nerdcore" article is questionable as well as it is clearly not a genre of music that is embraced by the public. The "nerdcore" article even states that is not embraced by many(as well as mentioning it has received absolutely no recognition from the RIAA). In short, the "ytcracker" article is promotion for not only Bryce Case but "nerdcore" as well.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaddavis (talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Chaddavis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep. This article has survived AfD three previous times. Setting that aside I went through the references provided. Of the 13 used for footnotes, seven were for hacking, one was an IMDb page crediting his appearance in two documentaries (on nerdcore), one was a blog (about nercore), and one was for a magazine called XLR8R. Let's disregard those as unimportant to the discussuion. That leaves us with an article in Newsweek, one in Wired, and one in the Boston Globe; all reputable publications. In the articles, he is among the subjects focused on when discussing the genre of music. Additionally, according to Wired magazine, the term "nerdcore" was coined by "MC Frontalot", not ytcracker. While I think "ytcracker" should refrain from editing his own article, I think the subject meets WP:BAND. Movementarian (Talk) 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the independent coverage of this artist by multiple documentaries, not to mention multiple news outlets is more than sufficient enough to surpass the WP:N bar. If the article is not written in a neutral tone that is an editorial issue. Go troll somewhere else, plz. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly passes WP:N, possibly for his music, certainly for the cracking of public websites. Not a snowball's chance in hell this doesn't pass. The fact that it might be used for self-promotion is irrelevant for the purposes of notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While it is inappropriate that ytcracker is himself editing the article, and he should possibly be banned from doing so, the content is well documented, notable, and mostly written in an encyclopedic tone. Also I feel that nerdcore is an actual genre, regardless of what the RIAA says. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 05:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:BIO, passes WP:N (I don't even see how this could be objectively contested, in all honesty - international print magazines and newspapers, multiple occasions!), and also passes WP:BAND. I echo others in agreeing that it is inappropriate that ytcracker is himself editing the article, but this has no bearing on whether it meets the three criteria for inclusion I cited. Objectively considering the policy articles, it seems hardly worthwhile to be having this debate about the merits of the writeup, which meets and exceeds each of them. Datavortex (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: come smoke some weed with me and we can edit my article together. Ytcracker (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There's not a lot to be said that hasn't been said already, even discounting the potentially unreliable sources, Newsweek, Wired and the like make this an article on a demonstrably notable subject matter. And in case you're wondering about the vandal edits from this IP, this is a Swiss university IP. 62.2.134.218 (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly notable through references to appearances in major publications. Possible NPOV issues should be resolved through editing, not deletion. Please see relevant sections of WP:DEL, such as "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." and "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." -Fadookie Talk 11:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and Lock - I have two primary concerns for this nomination. This request for deletion seems a little biased or even personal, going so far as claiming that an established genre of music (nerdcore) that has existed for over 10 years now both in USA and abroad (see the various noteworthy newspaper, magazine, and television articles/interviews.) is not relevant. There is an impressive following, with Nerdapalooza *nerdcore music festival* pushing quad-digit numbers yearly, and tours such as mc chris' current one (which ytcracker is in no less) selling out every show (check the numbers). My secondary concern is the mention of ytcracker editing his own wiki. It seems to either be someone confusing him for user rmk or claiming that repairing vandalism is a form of vandalism in itself. 4 nominations really? Once the article proved noteworthy the first times with the international tour, television, movie, written media, and mainstream successes it should be an open and shut case. chozo_ninpo (talk)09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and Lock Why 4 nominations??? Like mentioned earlier....this request for deletion seems personal.--L. E. Evans 18:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (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.