| Revision as of 01:07, 23 June 2010 editTothwolf (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,326 editsm {{Unsigned}}, {{Spa}}← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:42, 23 June 2010 edit undoWLU (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,243 edits →ytcracker: keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| *'''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 ] bar. If the article is not written in a neutral tone that is an editorial issue. Go troll somewhere else, plz. <font color="#BA181F">]</font> (<font color="#BA181F">]</font>) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC) | *'''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 ] bar. If the article is not written in a neutral tone that is an editorial issue. Go troll somewhere else, plz. <font color="#BA181F">]</font> (<font color="#BA181F">]</font>) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''': Passes ]. ] (]) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep''': Passes ]. ] (]) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Keep''' - clearly passes ], possibly for his music, certainly for the cracking of public websites. Not a ] this doesn't pass. The fact that it might be used for self-promotion is irrelevant for the purposes of notability. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 21:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:42, 23 June 2010
ytcracker
AfDs for this article:- 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)
— 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)
- 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)
- Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 21:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)