Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyfriend Robotique


 * 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 no consensus to delete, but please see WP:CITE to cite sources in the article. W.marsh 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Boyfriend Robotique
*delete a google search turns up only trivial mentions (i.e. "BOYFRIEND ROBOTIQUE present "English Lessons For The Foreign Artist" & "How Do You Feel" at the Market of Vain Desires...") that merely note where they are performing. There does NOT appear to be any critical review of their work. If no one in the media cares enough to review their work, how can they be notable? --Jayron32 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable performance artists. Prod was clearly contested (although folks didn't know how to actually remove it). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote changes. See below --Jayron32 01:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, no verification. Ex-Boyfriend Robotique, perhaps? "It's not me, it's you..." EVula 05:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with above. Google also returned nothing comprehensive about the artists. Cheers -- Imo  eng  06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons stated in my prod: "Non-notable performance troupe (150 Ghits); no sources to back up claim of being "thrown out of Canada."" ... disco spinster   talk  13:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete: I am working on what you asked for. This link takes you to a review of a Boyfriend Robotique show http://www.ebar.com/arts/art_article.php?sec=outabout&article=86 Also, this magazine features a set of images from another show www.psiloveyou-magazine.com So that's two reliable media sources. As for the other problems I have edited the page to include a line as to why they are notable (as per guidelines) and also have referenced the newspaper where I read about their deportation from Canada. I am new to wikipedia so please do forgive my lack of tech-savy. My point is simply that if this is to be an encyclopedia (and not just a high brow version of US Weekly) it really needs input on artists other than those who rotate heavily on MTV. I intend to get better at the technical side of wikipedia and contribute to the community information on the well known and less well known.Roderick P. Bruce 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Its a start. I am not changing my vote yet, but more of sources like this might get me to.  Being "well known"  or "pop culture" has nothing to do with a Wikipedia article.  A subject must be notable.  Read guidelines on notability.  It expressly states that: " a minimum standard for any given topic is that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself."  In several places, you will see that notability is expressly NOT fame.  If you want this article kept, continue to provide reliable sources to verify its notability.  YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK.  Its not much, but you stand a better chance of keeping the article by providing these kinds of reliable sources than by appealing to people's sense of pity or justice, or by implying that wikipedia's only criteria is popularity.  It isn't.  Its notability.  --Jayron32 04:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * More sources I found a catalogue of images here www.images.ullirichter.com from a German photographer's site (he's a professional not an amateur or fan). Also at http://www.gayliverpool.com/homotopia.htm there is an article about an upcoming show and in the 'Liverpool Echo' (25/10/06) there is a discussion of this show again. There is also a brief article in 'Boyz' (16/03/06) detailing their appearance at a gallery opening in London. I really don't catalogue the amount of press they get but it seems ever with a little research that they're quite prolific.
 * Change vote to keep I have seen enough. It's getting better.  Now that the references have been found, the original article needs to be edited, and the links provided either as inline references, or under the external link section.  Reasearch is what this is all about, and it is obvious that research has been done, and evidence of notability has been found.  These are honest-to-goodness reviews, and I see that as enough to satisfy WP:NN.. --Jayron32 01:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Relisting because sources were provided after everyone but Jayron commented. W.marsh 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep due to recent citations demonstrating notability. Please place those sources into the article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Insert References* Should these go in the actual text or as footnotes? Which is prefered? 80.225.119.191 15:49, 12 November 2006 (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.