Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Briokids


 * 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. ignoring spas and non-policy based votes we seem to have nothing left except delete argiments based on policy and inadequate sourcing Spartaz Humbug! 17:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Briokids

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The band fails the notability requirements of WP:BAND, and I have been unable to find any sources via Google other than self-published sources, information on forums, and 2 brief reviews of 2 albums by a columnist I could find no other notable information about. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Inks.LWC (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Briokids have been involved in underground performances for over 10 years. They have a more local fan based but have cross country relevance as they have played in 13 states and numerous cities. Also note that there is no competition for namesake so the most relevant article relating to Briokids would be the Briokids article that is currently posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GayfordButtram (talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — GayfordButtram (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just a quick point of order: This user appears to have been blocked for an improper user name, as well as a possible abuse of having multiple accounts. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Sorry that someone can not use their name as a username, therefore, a second account had to be established since the first was disabled. Wikipedia must have been handed over to and controlled by retards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.236.162 (talk)

I don't understand why briokids can't have it's own wikipedia page just because everything is self-published. Isn't the whole point of wikipedia the DIY ethic? This is what the briokids stand for, and because they give their music away for free and have the energy to self-publish with no expectation of reward, should they really be chastized for this? Wikipedia is a great site but this move seems a little hypocritical, if hard working musicians and music/art enthusiasts alike like the briokids cant get their own page while there's so many other random wikipedia pages I feel I must revert to using a real encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brando rhr (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Brando rhr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:NOBLE. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - "Isn't the whole point of wikipedia the DIY ethic?" No, Wikipedia is based on the Five Pillars, the second pillar involves a neutral point of view reinforced by information verified by reliable sources independent of the subject. This article lacks any of that. --  At am a  頭 08:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Does not appear to be or is not a reliable source? I think that Wikipedia should be more definitive as they seem to be with everything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.236.162 (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is a DIY ethic about wikipedia. But that doesn't supercede the need to meet inclusion guidelines.  There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability.  Sinical magazine does not appear to be a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Briokids records reviews have been published in a nationally distributed magazine twice. Grooves magazine Issue 6 and Issue 11. this information had been posted to present relevance but was taken down by wikipedia personel. unfortunatley Grooves magazine no longer exists but copies are still available for verification. Briokids is also listed on Wikipedia's Houston_noise as a notable band in the Houston Noise scene (see decade 2000's). If i'm not mistaken, wikipedia verifies their sources so why would Briokids be listed on their site if the info had not been valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.121.141 (talk)

Briokids once killed my father and raped my mother while blasting noisestep and chainsaw remixes. This was covered extensively by the Houston Press magazine. To delete this article is to delete history. Why must you further the hurt Briokids has caused my family by not allowing them to appear on Wikipedia so I can continually edit the article with false information? Is it because I'm black? You racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.32.7 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am starting to believe that Wikipedia could be funded by the Brio Site task force, hence the urge to remove all information related to the brio mutations. This site is real and the mutations did happen, you do not just destroy an entire subdivision because of heresy. Just saying if Southeast Memorial Hospital can be enticed to destroy records Wikipedia and it's gang of Nazis could easily be swayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.236.162 (talk)


 * Keep - I think they meet the minimum requirements for a band. They have a discography, have preformed at numerous venues, have a fan base. That solidifies their identity as a band. Though there may not be many national sources that reference them, there are source that mention them so therefore should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.139.178.169 (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2011 (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.