Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryce Beverlin II


 * 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. -Splash talk 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bryce Beverlin II
Contested speedy deletion (nn-bio for independent film maker/musician). Author tagged for over 24 hours. Possible claim to notability is subject founded an independent music label/company. Hurricane111 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete pure vanity, google brings very few mentions. author is no doubt the subject. Batman2005 04:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The music label thing prevented a speedy, but since he has created an article on that too (Insides Music) any notability which genuinely arises from that label can be covered there. The author has a few other questionable new articles to his name also, which maybe should be added? --kingboyk 06:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability of subject seems highly moot - as it stands, this looks very much like a vanity bio. Delete Guy Hatton 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I would reconsider if any of the musical/film works were verifiably important. As it stands, it is strictly vanity.  bikeable (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have nominated an experimental film by this author: Articles_for_deletion/Deathproj. bikeable (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there is also Insides Music by the same author, which appears to be another vanity article. Edgar181 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable, self-written vanity. Edgar181 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the one who tagged it nn-bio; it's still vanity. Delete. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've also started Articles for deletion/Insides Music. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment This would have been a perfectly reasonable start to an article if it had been submitted by a third party. -- A l e x W C ov i n g t o n  (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose delete (strong keep) As per comments above, if a third party had contributed this article there wouldn't be a problem. i think wikipedia's very value is in documenting the non-mainstream. If we wanted stuff on U2 or Queen or something we'd go to Allmusic or something. Personally I think its valuable that wikipedia is a medium for documenting and making accessable the works of marginal musicians. See also my arguemnets against deletion of the article I contributed on Red Square (band) (Articles for deletion/Red Square (band)) quercus robur 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. Re: quercus robur's comment, if a third party had contributed this article, it would mean that there was less of a problem, because someone else would have taken notice of him and wouldn't be writing from personal experience.  Postdlf 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: specifically We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable.  WP:V trumps all, except possibly WP:IAR, but that's the usual frame of things around here. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "trumps all" seesm to asume some kind of points scoring thing, which doesn't interest me. If we want wikipedia to only focus on the mainstream and duplicate what the highly inaccurate (from my experience) 'allmusic' posits as 'notable',and sideline and delete the marginal, fine, but to me this diminishes the value of the entire project. quercus robur 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a points scoring thing; my meaning is that exclaiming "but it's obscure and needs to be kept" is overridden by the fact that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Content must be verifiable, and if you're drawing on personal knowledge it still requires sources. If I was to write an article about kitten huffing drawing from my experience in underground world of kitten-dealing, I'd still have to show that there was a primary or secondary source supporting it. To fall back on "these things are undocumented and so it is up to us to document them" is to undermine what Wikipedia is trying to do: build a verifiable and neutral source of information that is freely available to the world as a whole. I feel a rant coming on, so I'll stop here and possibly continue on another subpage of my User page later. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 22:55, 3 February 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.