Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjie Bollox

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 redirect to The Visitors (American punk band). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjie Bollox

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Differences of opinion on biography AubergSweight (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Benjie Bollox[reply]

Speedy keep That's not reason for deletion (although I'm not entirely convinced by his notability, there may be a merge target). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to The Visitors (American punk band), although it's possible that article may also fail notability in future on closer inspection. This is an odd AfD – nominated by the article's main contributor over the last few years, who admits that they work for Bollox's own publishing company [1] and who have been making edits according to the subject's wishes, so you'd think they'd have a vested interest in keeping it... and then receiving a "speedy keep" vote which admits that they aren't convinced by the subject's notability. Anyway... Bollox himself fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO – there is this article in the Dallas Observer about him [2], but it's the only source I can find, and it's also only local coverage of a local musician. The other Dallas Observer reference in the article makes no mention of Bollox. It's true he played with notable bands the UK Subs and Splodgenessabounds, but only in brief, minor roles (stand-in drummer and coconut player, respectively), so the redirect to either of those bands won't be worth it. Richard3120 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep That is not a reason for deletion. It appears the primary contributor wanted article presented a certain bias way rather than all of the facts about the entry. Once additional information added they were not pleased with the result. I do believe the entry should stay as it related the The Visitors (American punk band) and though minor has a history with other notable acts such as U.K. Subs. Tom.rivers (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Tom.rivers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Richard3120 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, failing WP:MUSICBIO and having only one good reference IS a good reason for deletion... Richard3120 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that from the case you are presenting... was referring to reason this discussion was started. In regards to notability, I was also able to locate an interview of both UK Subs Charlie Harper and another mention/confirm of Splodgenessbounds. [3] In addition, he is credited with playing drums and co-writing the song Riot on UK Subs Riot Album. The album was released under Cleopatra Records Label. This does help it to meet WP:MUSICBIO.

Tom.rivers (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just chatting back to see if any other opinions and if we can carry this forward as a keep. There is only one criteria from WP:MUSICBIO that has to be met and this article/subject meets at least two. (#1 and #2). I would also like to state my account is not single purpose, I am actually a passionate Wikipedia user but have just only recently registered an account so topics I am involved in are currently small and niche. Since this is one of them I obviously feel inclined to comment on the Afd. Tom.rivers (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I speak to Benjie Bollox regularly. He never asked for this page to be created and sees no reason or need for it to stay.

He did want the article free of any bias and kept diplomatic but that has been changed by a recent contributor who has added a certain bias. If there was a perceived bias before the recent changes, that was never intentional.

If the page stays it is better to remove all mention of any other band member’s names and keep it a simple biography of Benjie Bollox which is exactly what this page is about anyway. I think being amicable and removing any bias whatsoever on all sides is a positive option.

If redirection is the option, redirecting to The Visitors page which has very little information about the band and has been written in bias by the same recent contributor would just continue the issue about bias. Considering any issues about notability, it would make more sense to redirect to UK Subs considering that is the main focal point in his notability. According to Google, when people Google Benjie Bollox they also Google other UK Subs members ColonelDavy (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelDavy (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - There are many reasons for deletion of the page. The article was created by someone who knew Benjie and felt that he was notable to him. As someone who knows Benjie personally, I can confidently say that Benjie never asked for article and he does not see any reason for the article's existence.

The fact that when the page was started filled with unreliable and unverifiable and original research should be enough reason alone to remove the page as it should have been deleted when it was created as it breached so many guidelines. According to Wikipedia, ″the phrase ′original research′ (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist″.

Also, the recent additions breach verifiability, are a conjectural interpretation and do not improve the article. They are questionable and focus on and magnify tiny details around events irrelevant to the article. According to Wikipedia guidelines, ″material about living people that is sourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately″. The recent material also goes against the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. According to Wikipedia neutrality guidelines, ″If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia″.

Bare notability is another reason for deletion, as the article just minimally meets Wikipedia's notability standards as it is presented with very few references. The article also does not contain high-quality secondary sources. According to Wikipedia, ″Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity″. The topic has not ″received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject″ (Wikipedia). Most of the sources lack ″editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability″ (Wikipedia). Wikipedia also states that "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.″. This subject of the article has not gained significant attention from independent sources. Wikipedia states ″No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.″ ColonelDavy (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom.rivers: my apologies to you if you are indeed a long-time contributor to Wikipedia: it was just that as the only edits you have made since creating your account relate to Mr. Bollox, it did appear that you were a single-purpose account. There is no question that he has played in two notable bands, but per WP:NOTINHERITED that doesn't necessarily make him notable enough to have his own article. And as you can see above, it appears that even Mr. Bollox considers himself not notable enough to have his own article. It seems the only reliable source is the Dallas Observer, but it's a repeated source, and furthermore a local one, so I'm not sure it passes the "multiple, independent coverage" required. I would also question your statement that he passes criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO – although the bands in question did have hits on the UK charts, Mr. Bollox was not a member of them at the time, so he personally has not appeared on any chart hits in any country, as far as I am aware. What will happen now is that this AfD will stay open for a few more days to see if anyone else would like to comment, and it will then be closed by an administrator who will decide on what course of action to take.
ColonelDavy: I have struck through your "delete" comment above as you are only allowed one !vote, and you had already asked for "speedy delete" previously. You can see that I agree with you (and Mr. Bollox) that he isn't notable enough for his own article, but unfortunately it won't be up to him to decide – it will be a administrative decision made after arguments have been put forward by various Wikipedia editors. Hopefully some other editors will have some input into this AfD in the next few days. Richard3120 (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Richard3120: No worries. Where I can agree that there is quite a bit of uncited conjecture in this article and it was like that from the beginning, years before the latest edits. If the article is not deleted sources should be added or the article shortened to only contain source verifiable information. A quick google search shows numerous articles on other encyclopedia platforms that state everything that was in the previously edited article. It appears this original article creation was for self-promotion at one point regardless of what subject states were the facts. This also appears obvious with reverted edit reasons of "changes made without permission from singer". In regards to the charting, there were American charts "Billboard" with The Visitors in Dec 1998 and Jan 1999, however these have not been cited in this particular article. Does anyone have any issues with the particle being cleaned up and shortened to only contain sourced verifiable information until a keep, redirect, or delete is agreed too? I do not mind making these edits. Tom.rivers (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom.rivers do you have a reference for those Billboard charts? The Billboard website doesn't appear to show any charting history at all for the Visitors. Richard3120 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 Here are a couple: Billboard Magazine 12/26/1998 and Billboard Magazine 01-09-1999 The online Billboard "Independent" records do not go further back than the year 2000.Tom.rivers (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks... but those aren't actual Billboard charts, they're "most requested songs on the radio" charts, and they won't pass RS. And they do kind of prove the point that Mr. Bollox isn't independently notable, just as part of a group. Richard3120 (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I hear you there and can see where you are coming from in regards to independent notability. Honestly, I do not care if this article is deleted, it just needs to be for the right reasons. The fact that is article appears to have originated for self promotion makes me think of changing to a delete just in that regards. Tom.rivers (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be a simple "delete" - despite not meeting individual notability, "Benjie Bollox" is still a valid search term for a redirect in Wikipedia... I think if this article was redirected to the Visitors or to UK Subs, that would probably be a solution that suits everyone who has taken part in this discussion. But I'll leave that to the closing admin to decide. Richard3120 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If for some reason it gets redirected, it makes more sense to redirect to UK Subs which are a notable band and not the Visitors which was only one of many smaller bands in Bollox's career, and as Richard3120 points out above in regard to the Visitors article ″it's possible that article may also fail notability in future on closer inspection.″ Also to reiterate what I wrote above, the UK Subs were the main focal point of his notability. The whole point of a search on Wikipedia would most likely be from a UK Subs enthusiast. But a delete makes sense as most likely, someone is going to be searching for the term ″UK Subs″ rather than just ″Benjie Bollox″. The page has a strong case for full deletion.ColonelDavy (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Visitors (American punk band) as the only band he played a significant role in. He isn't independently notable and sufficient sources don't exist to have a decent article here. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Visitors (American punk band) per the other redirects. Invalid rationale. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.