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 per consensus. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back Dorm Boys[edit]

Back Dorm Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

An editor asked the following question at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/William Sledd (2nd nomination):

Then tell me what makes these youtubers so special. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Dorm_Boys Why do they rate a wikipedia article, but not William Sledd? I demand an answer. James Allen Starkloff 75.89.17.161 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So, I looked at the article to try and find an answer. I noticed that it asserted more notability than did the Sledd article, but at the same time there were no reliable sources cited. The article states that "[t]he Back Dorm Boys received mainstream media attention in the United States through The Ellen DeGeneres Show" but provides no further information, and this Google search yields little. Another claim, that the pair were signed by Motorola, is similarly difficult to confirm with reliable sources and a marginal assertion of notability anyway. The answer to the original question is "They don't rate a Wikipedia article either." Delete. N Shar (talk • contribs) 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's a bit late to withdraw the nomination, but see my comment below. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Why is Wikipedia deleting articles about youtubers? James Allen Starkloff 75.89.29.62 05:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia is deleting articles that have no reliable sources and are not attributable. In particular, attributability is a policy. Articles on YouTubers are more likely to have no reliable sources than, say, mathematics articles, so they are nominated for deletion more frequently than mathematics articles. If reliable sources are provided, this article could be kept. Conversely, articles that are not attributable, whether on YouTubers, conventional television actors, or politicians, may be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have the Back Dorm Boys been the subject of a exteranlly verifiable writing which is not directly related to the group? (for example, news articles, scholarly works, etc). None of the claims in the article can be Wikipedia:Attributed (verified by the use of third-party sources), and there are no potential sources in the External Links section. No source for the claim of appearance on the Ellen talk show, and I would feel significantly more comfortable if someone high-up in the making of Heroes states outright that the scene mentioned in the article is inspired by the BDB. Delete unless the information can be verified trough reliable, fact-checked sources independant of the BDB. -- saberwyn 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So they lip syncs songs on YouTube? Big deal, not everything on YouTube is notable. TJ Spyke 06:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep I still think that people who are only famous for appearing on YouTube don't deserve articles, but they do pass WP:N now. TJ Spyke 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sarcasm>Something on YouTube is???</sarcasm> -- saberwyn 06:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It can't be reliably sourced. GassyGuy 07:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:RS. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:BIO unless some reliable sources can be provided.Keep based on new sources. Nuttah68 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are we counting Sina.com as a reliable news source? Because there are enough Sina.com articles that can be found if you search using their Chinese names. -Pandacomics 15:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(in English) The Economist. Out of the dorm: How to make Confucian communists squirm.

(in English) The Scotsman. Fame and fortune are knocking for the Back Dorm Boys from Beijing

(in English) Fox News. Greatest Hits of the Year's Greatest Hit: 2006's Best YouTube Clips BDB is ranked #9.

(in English) ABC News. Made in China: Podcast Revolution

(in English) China Daily. Chinese 'Backstreet Boys' - Article w/4 pages of pictures

(in English) The Age. A three-liner in their article about "Google idol"

(in English) The Seattle Times. "2 Chinese boys" lip-sync their way to Web stardom

(in English) Miller, Donna. and Bruenger, David. Beyond Cultural Globalization: A Postmodern Interpretation of Decivilization. Presented at the IAICS Conference San Antonio. Analysis of the Back Dorm Boys from pages 15-17 (double spaced).

• Donna Miller is an instructor at the Jefferson Community and Technical College, while David Bruenger is an Associate Professor of Music at the University of Texas San Antonio[1]

(in English) Assmusen, Nicole. Iowa State News. Editorial on the BDB Phenomenon

(in English) China.org Lip-synching Duo Look Beyond YouTube Fame

(in Chinese) Lianhe Zaobao The Guangdong Arts Institute's funny Back Dormitory Boys become famous on the Internet. Short synopsis of their achievements, and an interview with Wei Wei.

(in Chinese) Yahoo! China. Interview with Yahoo! China - 15 pages.

(in Chinese) Sina.com Back Dorm Boys as the "most popular" Internet people

(in Chinese) Sina.com Technology Back Dorm Boys gain popularity on Youtube, World Cup tribute video reaches 160,000 viewers.

(in Chinese) Sina.com Interview with the BDB.

(in Chinese) Tom.com 3-page interview with the BDB.

(in Chinese) Tom.com News about BDB appearing on music video for a song by Catcher in the Rye (Chinese rock band).

(in Chinese) Tom.com Back Dorm Boys are the most "in" idols. Internet groups never cease to amaze. Published today.

(in Chinese) Sohu.com BDB's deal with Pepsi.

(in Chinese) Chongqing News. News on Back Dorm Boys being on a show.

I think it's a matter of searching "back dormitory boys" not "back dorm boys" on Google. Keep. -Pandacomics 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep My über-deletionist half is screaming 'delete' because of the YouTube, but my saner half is intrigued by Pandacomics' links. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per links provided by -Pandacomics. --Hobit 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I shudder to say it, but keep - Pandacomics' links, especially the Economist, Scotsman and ABC News stories, suggest notability has been achieved. By a YouTube phenomenon. I need to wash my hands now. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Use the presented news articles and likewise to perform a complete rewrite of the article, where all claims made by the article are demonstrated to be true by an external source. Remove any claims not demonstrated by a source (By demonstrated, I mean someone 'talking' about the claim, not the claim itself in action). Being the English Wikipedia, I would suggest a preference to sources in English, but if you can find reasons to work them all in, go for it. If this is done, or at least progress towards this is underway by the end of the AfD period, keep. -- saberwyn 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By "find a reason", did you mean "find a way to incorporate the information in those Chinese articles that might be of use to the encyclopedic nature of this Wikipedia article" ? -Pandacomics 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • If both an English and a Chinese article say something, cite the English. If its only in the chinese, cite it, but be aware that verification will be more difficult. -- saberwyn 10:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Though I'm not withdrawing the nomination in case others have opinions, I think that some of the sources (in particular the Economist story) confirm notability. If the article is kept, we should have a complete rewrite for sure. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs a lot of cleaning up, but a large amount of notability (much as it makes me shiver to count Youtube etc) EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I stand corrected. It can be reliably sourced. I agree with Saberwyn that this should be completely rewritten so that it is reliably sourced. GassyGuy 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article gets deleted, I'll cut my hair and put on red lipstick to make the most anti-wikipedia video ever. DrZarkloff151.213.162.165 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per links provided by -Pandacomic. bbx 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please they are very popular in china and have multiple endorsements too you can read chinese article yuckfoo 04:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this highly notable meme. "Back Dormitory Boys" receive 23,500 Google hits, and "Back Dorm Boys" another 22,900. This, combined with a dozen non-trivial English-language references, and even more in Chinese language meet and exceed WP:BIO standards.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:52, 5 March 2007 (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.