13-year-old's vanity music video garners BLP, MUSICBIO trumps BLP1E and common sense Options

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

"The other song was about adult love – I haven't experienced that yet," racey 13 year old Rebecca Black is quoted as saying for the reason she chose the song "Friday", scoring a phenomenal 44 references, and a longer topic page than Alessandro Scarlatti (no references naturally), apparently being notable for the Youtube song with the most mocking comments or something. In fact, she score more highly than ALL the Scarlattis put together (... one reference).

And for the rest of time, Rebecca will be recorded by the ordure that is Jimmy Wales onanistic organ as being "worst song ever", "bizarre," "inept," "hilariously dreadful" and "YouTube laughing stock." Of course, its not a BLP laying the boot into a 13 year old girl ... it's a topic about a "notable" song, even though Black is reported as saying that "those hurtful comments really shocked her" and that she was brought to tears by comments such as "I hope you go cut [yourself] and die" or "'I hope you cut yourself, and I hope you'll get an eating disorder so you'll look pretty"; so the Wikipedia insists on telling me.

But never mind, the Wikipedia also considers it notable enough that she soon was able to ignore such comments and ask Justin Bieber (who I have no clue who he is) to do a duet ... except he has not replied yet, or perhaps he does not even know because he management team dont follow Facebook or something.

Amazingly, all this eternal notability happened in the last 10 days ... that is all it take these days to get your own Wiki-page these days ... created by someone's obvious sleeper sock "Captaincapitalism".

Surely not worthy of deletion? Boy, I just cannot wait until for the loss of virginity and ensuing decline into substance abuse happens, and are all added to the article ... shouldn't someone tell her parents where to send the lawyer's letter?

Delete I understand that I am likely in the minority here, but I think keeping an article that is a series of criticisms regarding a child simply because it can be sourced is completely unnecessary. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. I am pretty sure that WP:SNOW really applies here so I think it is best to close this now. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And, for the record, or as we say these days "for the downloadable mp3" I think it is a wonderful take on perfect plastic pop that could not have been cynically created better and Becky deserves all the success in the world. Especially when the song is covered by Bob Dylan. See Youtube for other numerous perfectly acceptable parodies.

Keep I'm very supportive of avoiding BLP violations, especially when it's a 13-year-old, but I don't see any here. Negative unsourced additions have been repeatedly reverted, and what's left seems well sourced and accurately reflects the sources - in fact, every single statement is sourced. Sources include Time, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, New York Daily Times, Forbes. (Please also note there is also a deletion review of a related article happening at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 14#Rebecca Black) --

Oh, and I strongly disagree with "any other non-notable person could have replaced her and the song would have received the same attention" - it's the fact that she's such a bad singer that even auto-tune can't save it that has made it such a hit. --

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Tarc]

Welcome to the wonderful world of ARSehole rule, where "but it is reliably sourced!" is the battlecry that more often than not carries the day.

[Silver seren]

First off, I can't tell if you're being serious about Bob Dylan singing that song, but that's not Bob Dylan. It's a fake.

Second off, I love how you cherry-pick from the article so that it suits your point of view. For example, you completely ignore the paragraph that says:

"Despite the overwhelmingly negative reviews, some reviewers had positive things to say about the song and video. Entertainment Weekly writer Joseph Lynch noted that there was "something sickeningly catchy about this tune that keeps you coming back for more." Rolling Stone's Perpetua stated, "When you see this video, you immediately notice everything that it does 'wrong', but it actually gets a lot of things about pop music right, if just by accident." OK! Magazine also noted that "some are calling the 13-year-old signed singer the next Justin Bieber." Pop star Chris Brown also added his view: "Honest opinion? It was great. I'll be jammin' to it on Friday, Friday." Simon Cowell praised Black, saying: "I love her [and] the fact that she's gotten so much publicity. People are so upset about the song, but I think it's hysterical...Anyone who can create this much controversy within a week, I want to meet. I love people like that." He observed that "any song to do with the weekend annoys you. It reminds me of 'Saturday Night'...It’s what we call a 'hair-dryer song,' a song girls sing into their hair dryers as they’re getting ready to go out. But the fact that it’s making people so angry is brilliant.”"

Not to mention in the Response section "Rolling Stone's Perpetua again praised Black after the interview, stating that "she is actually a pretty decent singer...she is a total sweetheart...[and] Black comes off as a well-adjusted, happy and grateful kid.""


Lastly, it was kept for the vast amount of news it had created. If the song had ended up being just a flash in the pan, it would have eventually been sent to AfD again and subsequently deleted. However, this song that is being described as "the worst song ever" has charted in multiple countries. Regardless of if people think it's bad, everyone is paying money to have it on their iPods. Black had already made $40,000 off of all of this.

[gomi]

... it was kept for the vast amount of news it had created.

I thought you morons had a policy called WP:BLP1E (T-H-L-K-D): "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.". If you and the rest of the WP lot weren't such onanistic jerks, you would have deleted this article two seconds after it was created, even by the letter of your own policies. Yeesh. The poor girl has both a Bio and a distinct article about the song. A wiki-albatross.

Addendum:Silver Seren's comment on re-creating the teen's bio:

Recreate She meets WP:MUSICBIO, that's all we need. Notability established. SilverserenC 23:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the intense interest in this is that most Wikipidiots are either right around 13 years old themselves (physically or mentally), or lust after them. One can only wonder which category Silver falls into.

[Silver seren]

...the article is about the song, not a person, so it has nothing to do with BLP1E. As for the page about her specifically, she meets the requirements of MUSICBIO by having a charted song. Otherwise she would have been deleted, yes.

Age has nothing to do with biography articles, otherwise you would be saying we shouldn't have one on Hollie Steel, Shaheen Jafargholi, or Jackie Evancho.

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[gomi]

...the article is about the song, not a person, so it has nothing to do with BLP1E. As for the page about her specifically, she meets the requirements of MUSICBIO by having a charted song. Otherwise she would have been deleted, yes.

You voted Recreate on her personal biography you lying sack of shit. Try to keep things straight.

[Silver seren]

Did you even read what I said? Like, the MUSICBIO part and having a charted song?

[anthony]

Reminded me of Robin Sparkles:



I dunno, we've all done dumb things in our youth. And as much as it sucks that these things are now broadcast across the globe and recorded for all eternity, that's hardly Wikipedia's fault.

[gomi]

I suspect the intense interest in this is that most Wikipidiots are either right around 13 years old themselves (physically or mentally), or lust after them. One can only wonder which category Silver falls into.

Age has nothing to do with biography articles, otherwise you would be saying we shouldn't have one on Hollie Steel, Shaheen Jafargholi, or Jackie Evancho.

My point exactly. Those people shouldn't have bios either. "Age has nothing to do with ..." is the first refuge of the pedophile.

Did you even read what I said? Like, the MUSICBIO part and having a charted song?

Did you even read what I said, which is "Who gives a shit, the song is a 'flash in the pan' and she's 13"? Write her bio when she turns into Lady Gaga or Brittany Spears, and turns 21. Oh, and did I say that you're a sack of shit?

[Silver seren]

So...you're saying that regardless of achievements, we should never have an article on an underage person? That if they record an album that sells extremely well world-wide, we still should not have an article on them?

I think you miss the purpose of an encyclopedia.

[gomi]

So...you're saying that regardless of achievements, we should never have an article on an underage person? That if they record an album that sells extremely well world-wide, we still should not have an article on them?

I think you miss the purpose of an encyclopedia.

And I think you confuse the general with the specific. Are there underage persons for whom there should be biographies? Perhaps. Is a biography well-advised and encyclopedic in the cases of minor and temporary internet celebrities, pop-musicians of the moment, and other forgettables? No. No serious reference work would include them, and by arguing that they should be included, you show you have no understand of the concept of an encylopedia, but you have been brainwashed by Jimbo into believing an encylcopedia is a Big Bag O'Trivia. Repeat after me: if everything is equally important, then nothing is important.

[anthony]

I suspect the intense interest in this is that most Wikipidiots are either right around 13 years old themselves (physically or mentally), or lust after them.

What would you say it is that causes the intense interest in this among Wikipedia Reviewers?

[gomi]

What would you say it is that causes the intense interest in this among Wikipedia Reviewers?

Some of us are the fathers of daughters, and cringe at the thought of our children being subject to the tender mercies of the likes of Silver Seren.

[anthony]

So...you're saying that regardless of achievements, we should never have an article on an underage person? That if they record an album that sells extremely well world-wide, we still should not have an article on them?

I think you miss the purpose of an encyclopedia.

And I think you confuse the general with the specific. Are there underage persons for whom there should be biographies? Perhaps. Is a biography well-advised and encyclopedic in the cases of minor and temporary internet celebrities, pop-musicians of the moment, and other forgettables? No. No serious reference work would include them, and by arguing that they should be included, you show you have no understand of the concept of an encylopedia, but you have been brainwashed by Jimbo into believing an encylcopedia is a Big Bag O'Trivia. Repeat after me: if everything is equally important, then nothing is important.

As much as I disagree with most of your argument, I think you have hit on one of the problems with Wikiepdia. Yes, this story is most likely a flash-in-the-pan, minor, temporary thing. But Wikipedians aren't allowed to use their brains to draw such conclusions. As far as they're concerned, one "album that sells extremely well world-wide" is equivalent to any other "album that sells extremely well world-wide".

[Zoloft]

Well that was disgusting overall. I need to go eat a mint.

[anthony]

What would you say it is that causes the intense interest in this among Wikipedia Reviewers?

Some of us are the fathers of daughters, and cringe at the thought of our children being subject to the tender mercies of the likes of Silver Seren.

So don't push your daughter to be a teen pop music star. Don't refuse when the "record company" offers to take your daughter's music video down. Don't put your daughter on Jay Leno.

It's not like this girl is an unintentional public figure.

Anyway, my point is that you're being a hypocrite. If there's nothing interesting about this story, and/or if it's wrong to comment on it publicly, then this thread shouldn't, or wouldn't, exist. If it's wrong for Wikipedia to quote the assholes who made the "cut yourself" comments, then it's equally wrong to repeat that quote here.

Other than that, all you've got is the old boring argument that anything which calls itself an encyclopedia should limit itself to 100,000 articles or so.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Malleus]

So...you're saying that regardless of achievements, we should never have an article on an underage person? That if they record an album that sells extremely well world-wide, we still should not have an article on them?

I think you miss the purpose of an encyclopedia.

And I think you confuse the general with the specific. Are there underage persons for whom there should be biographies? Perhaps. Is a biography well-advised and encyclopedic in the cases of minor and temporary internet celebrities, pop-musicians of the moment, and other forgettables? No. No serious reference work would include them, and by arguing that they should be included, you show you have no understand of the concept of an encylopedia, but you have been brainwashed by Jimbo into believing an encylcopedia is a Big Bag O'Trivia. Repeat after me: if everything is equally important, then nothing is important.

As much as I disagree with most of your argument, I think you have hit on one of the problems with Wikiepdia. Yes, this story is most likely a flash-in-the-pan, minor, temporary thing. But Wikipedians aren't allowed to use their brains to draw such conclusions. As far as they're concerned, one "album that sells extremely well world-wide" is equivalent to any other "album that sells extremely well world-wide".

That's clearly absurd, but then if you'd taken a moment to think before posting you might have realised that yourself.

Sure, she's an averagely good-looking teenager with one of those annoyingly whiney American voices and can't sing. So what's new?

[anthony]

As much as I disagree with most of your argument, I think you have hit on one of the problems with Wikiepdia. Yes, this story is most likely a flash-in-the-pan, minor, temporary thing. But Wikipedians aren't allowed to use their brains to draw such conclusions. As far as they're concerned, one "album that sells extremely well world-wide" is equivalent to any other "album that sells extremely well world-wide".

That's clearly absurd, but then if you'd taken a moment to think before posting you might have realised that yourself.

The fact that it's absurd is the reason I brought it up. The fact that it's absurd is the reason I labelled it a "problem".

[Malleus]

...the article is about the song, not a person, so it has nothing to do with BLP1E. As for the page about her specifically, she meets the requirements of MUSICBIO by having a charted song. Otherwise she would have been deleted, yes.

You voted Recreate on her personal biography you lying sack of shit. Try to keep things straight.

I really think that you need to consider whether you're either a competent or a capable moderator on this site asshole. I for one have had just about as much of you and Awbrey's manic idiocy as I'm prepared to tolerate. I'm sure you won't miss me though.

[Silver seren]

...the article is about the song, not a person, so it has nothing to do with BLP1E. As for the page about her specifically, she meets the requirements of MUSICBIO by having a charted song. Otherwise she would have been deleted, yes.

You voted Recreate on her personal biography you lying sack of shit. Try to keep things straight.

I really think that you need to consider whether you're either a competent or a capable moderator on this site asshole. I for one have had just about as much of you and Awbrey's manic idiocy as I'm prepared to tolerate. I'm sure you won't miss me though.

Well, he's just as hypocritical of a leader (admin/moderator) as Jimbo is, so there's that comparison.