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:

[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.

[Wikicrusher2]

...you lying sack of shit. Try to keep things straight.

This is the conduct that administrators on this site display to the public. Don't you think that would turn off visitors to the site, for a staff member to say this to another participant? Who, it must be noted, did not lie at all (unlike you).

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.

This post has been edited by Wikicrusher2:

[anthony]

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.

While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

As the original poster, I defend the title. It is precisely what is going on. It is a gang rape, typical to the Wikipedia, of some naive 13 year old but a mob of faceless, anonymous, insensitive morons. Some poor girl is on the ground and they are are all up there trying to gouge their "reliable source" in. The point I made regarding Dylan is that if he had released it, it would have been hailed as a classic come back.

I posted it to demonstrate the ugly, asymmetric absurdity that is Jimmy Wales's Paedo-pedia ... in particular the regular ridiculousness of the speedy delete defend team ... (and, of course, to show off my knowledge of genuinely influential Baroque musicians). If you knew anything about music, anything about culture, anything about "knowledge", you would know just how wrong the whole thing was ... and this is another of the great failings of editorial-less Wiki-wank. All the Scarlattis together score just one reference.

The Wikipedia is just an sick joke, bordering on evil for its corruption of the idea of "knowledge" and writing, so much so that they, and you Silver, cannot see it.

Perhaps the more references a topic requires, the more of a rape it is? The rapists require their justification ... sure, the 13 year old girl was asking for it for dressing that way and doing a sexy dance; so we wp:cited her good and wp:catted her on "List of YouTube personalities".

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.

The point being, the perfectly normal kid is not a "wannabe starlet" driven by insane parents. On my scant reading of the subject, the company involved offers a kind of "stars in their eyes" "let's be a popstar for a day" service to, primarily to nice middle class families for $2,000. It's just a bit of fun the whole family gets into. A vanity record label ... link.

Does the Wikipedia publicize vanity book publish authors ... authors of "the worst book"?

It goes on in her biography. "Rebecca Black is an American pop singer who first rose to fame with her 2011 single "Friday."" Really? Really on both accounts, i.e. a) "singer" and b) "fame"? Andy Warhol come back from the dead. 3 minutes IS all it takes to get into the Wikipedia. In the real world, she wont even make it into the Guinness Book of Records. What reality do these people exist in? What reality are they making?

How old are you Silver? (This is another problem and why real Encyclopedias usually employ adults at editors, do you have any idea how many "the worst songs ever" they have been up to this date? It is utterly meaningless beyond a hurtful, personal comment just as "making $40,000" is.

And then there Ark Music Factory dressing one's pre-teen daughter up to do Robert Palmer parodies for Zachary Freiman's bar mitzvah video. As some sage said on another discussion board, "Funded by a peadophile ring ... preying on the idiocy of American pre-teen/teen girls who have little to no musical education" (and, rather cynically, it looks like they advertize in The Jewish Observer ... because we all know they are rich enough to afford this stuff for their Zacs and Beckies).

Ark Music Factory was launched last month by Patrice Wilson and Clarence Jey ... [they] work with girls as young as nine years old (link).

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

[anthony]

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.

The point being, the perfectly normal kid is not a "wannabe starlet" driven by insane parents. On my scant reading of the subject, the company involved offers a kind of "stars in their eyes" "let's be a popstar for a day" service to, primarily to nice middle class families for $2,000. It's just a bit of fun the whole family gets into. A vanity record label ... link.

She went on Jay Leno. She went on Good Morning America. She didn't want ARK to take the video down. Presumably she put it up on iTunes, or at least didn't object to it staying on iTunes (I don't think iTunes would continue to sell it without her permission). If she and/or her parents didn't want the attention, they wouldn't do that. (And note that I'm not the one who called her a "'wannabe starlet' driven by insane parents".)

Some people, especially on YouTube, made some really horrible comments. The girl repeated the comments in an interview with Good Morning America, and Wikipedia reported them as part of the story. And then you reported them (the same exact comments) as part of this thread. Had the girl not repeated the comments in an interview, they almost certainly would have never been kept in Wikipedia. The girl apparently *wants* people to know that those comments were made about her. If she didn't, why go on Good Morning America and tell the world about what people said and how it made you feel?

Again, if you want to get into an argument over whether Wikipedia should have 100,000 articles or 100,000,000 articles, I'm not interested. If you want to get into an argument over whether Wikipedia should or should not report on recent events, I'm not interested, at least not in this thread. These arguments have been beaten to death, and I don't see any new aspect to them here.

I'm not interested in getting into the nature of Wikipedia. I think it's obvious that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, and that it never has been, so I don't think it's appropriate to try to compare it to encyclopedias. And I think once you accept that Wikipedia is going to report on recent events, this particular event is obviously fair game. And it seems to me that you can't disagree with that, since you yourself are reporting the events which took place. You're repeating the quotes. You're repeating her name. And you didn't even post this in a non-search-engine-archived discussion forum, so far as I can tell (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that).

It goes on in her biography. "Rebecca Black is an American pop singer who first rose to fame with her 2011 single "Friday."" Really? Really on both accounts, i.e. a) "singer" and b) "fame"? Andy Warhol come back from the dead. 3 minutes IS all it takes to get into the Wikipedia. In the real world, she wont even make it into the Guinness Book of Records. What reality do these people exist in? What reality are they making?

The biography is pretty bad. I've got no dispute with that.

Probably the main reason why it's so bad is that it's a compromise. No, it's not accurate to describe her as an "American pop singer", and "rose to fame" is hyperbole. But that phrasing got added in, I'd bet dollars-to-donuts, in order to lessen the chance that the article gets deleted completely.

If it were up to me, I'd make the "biography" a ~one-liner which links to the song.

How old are you Silver? (This is another problem and why real Encyclopedias usually employ adults at editors, do you have any idea how many "the worst songs ever" they have been up to this date? It is utterly meaningless beyond a hurtful, personal comment just as "making $40,000" is.

Again the hypocrisy. If Wikipedia is wrong for quoting others who called it "the worst song ever", why aren't you wrong for quoting Wikipedia?

No, it's not at all the worst song ever. Though the lyrics are pretty damn bad. And that's not even the girl's fault. The singing - whatever - she's 13.

How old are you, Mr. up-over-conspiracy?

This post has been edited by anthony: