Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeyHive

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 keep. No !votes for deletion except the nominator — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BeyHive[edit]

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

Delete - Whilst Beyonce may call her fans "the BeyHive", the term or concept has not received non-trivial coverage from multiple, verifiable, reliable or independent sources. SplashScreen (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I easily find good sources such as Vogue (Italy), Marie Claire (Australia) and Форум (Russia) explaining and using the term. I also find The Mirror (UK) using the headline "Buzz over Beyhive" on 9 December 2008 and ABC News (USA) on 18 May 2012 using the headline "Beyonce Beyhive Winners" in "Good Morning America". One might argue for a merge, but there is plenty here demonstrating non-trivial and international social impact to avoid deletion. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above by Fæ, and given that the article already holds a substantial amount of information already! The fanbase has derived it's own terminology and vocabulary at this point, all of which has been verified by Knowles herself. That, plus all the media coverage the term has gotten constitutes the article. Names for fanbases are a semi-new thing to celebrities and the popularization originates from Gaga, Bieber and Knowles. The article stands informative enough, as is. WikiUhOh (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the posts above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.170.196 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is this user's first edit. Statυs (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fæ. Statυs (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fæ's reasons. My love is love (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as of yet, User:Fæ does not have a rationale with which to agree, as they have yet to provide said sources so we can assess whether the mentions of "BeyHive" within them are trivial, notable etc. Until these sources actually appear (either here or on the article), their argument is in violation of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. SplashScreen (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said "easily", I meant on the first page of a GNews search, I didn't bother looking beyond that. As for the newspaper references, anyone can verify these if they have access to a news database such as LexisNexis and as I have given date of publication and headlines they are now also easy to find.
Most editors interpret BEFORE, where it states "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources," as meaning that you should run a Google/GNews search or similar before raising an AFD. Our policies make it clear that an article's sources do not have to be complete or even "quality" in order to keep an article, there only needs to be a reasonable expectation that better sources will be added in the near future. Tripping over reasonable prospective sources in simple Google searches is treated as an excellent indicator that better sources are available. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis[edit]

Vogue Italy - Describing her website, one sentence says she has a section of her site for "a group of fans called Beyhive" - A trivial mention.
Woman.ru - One sentence says that there is "a special unit for the fans, entitled Beyhive" on Beyonce's website. This publication is neither recognised on this or the Russian Wikipedia as notable - A trivial mention in an unreliable source.
Yahoo Australia - One sentence says "the multi-media site includes sections on..."Beyhive" (for the official fan collective)" - A trivial mention.
The Mirror - This tabloid article [1] is 3 sentences long and "Beyhive" is used as a pun (formulated by the Mirror) to reference Beyonce's hairstyle. This does not comment on the name she gives her fans. - Irrelevent.
GMA - This video [2] is about a non-notable internal competition on a US TV show called "Beyhive", in which people had to dress as Bees to win concert tickets. This source does not comment on the cultural standing of Beyonce calling her fans the BeyHive. Of all the sources, this is the most notable, but is nowhere near enough to support a whole article. A trivial and hardly relevent mention.

Clearly, none of these sources are enough to support an article and we can not just assume that better sources may come along. I suggest that, instead of telling other which policies to read, User:Fæ has a thorough look at WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:IS and WP:GNG before contributing to any more AfD discussions. SplashScreen (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remainder of discussion[edit]

Thanks for the analysis and your free advice as to what policies I need to read. You might try looking through other sources of page 1 of GNews matches, and maybe try page 2. Have you tried searching for sources yourself in accordance with BEFORE rather than raising an AFD and then attempting to shoot down every source that others are falling over as trivial and irrelevant? By the way, tangential matches are sufficient to justify an article if these amount to sufficient impact on society or the historic record. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I carried out a source search and they were all as vacuous and laughable as the ones provided in your post. Clearly, a competition on a tabloid news show and a section on a singer's website does not warrant "sufficient impact on society or the historic record". SplashScreen (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I took pains to show that this concept has been in use for over 3 years in significant publications, and has international impact, both society and historic impact should be considered and many readers will feel this has been sufficiently demonstrated to make an AFD seem rather tangential at this stage.

The three year time period does not count when the first trivial mention was in a totally different context, leaving all of the other trivial mentions occurring under a 12 month period. SplashScreen (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to vacuous and laughable, I can not see the point of continuing any further discussion with someone that has resorted to personal ridicule. My opinion stays "keep" in line with the majority here so far. Bye --Fæ (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seams as though SplashScreen has taken this AfD from a creative discussion to a personal attack on Fæ in a weird attempt to delete an article that only he feels should be deleted. WikiUhOh (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2012 (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.