Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Badges (2nd nomination)

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. I'm not seeing any appetite for deletion here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better_Badges

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

This article was deleted before, then the delete got overturned with overturn and relist. It reads like a selfimportant advertisement. Maybe it can be improved but it should be relisted anyway. MarioNovi (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral ~~Delete~~ - having had a look at the sources, I'm not particularly convinced the sources are enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm seeing broken links, blogs, passing mentions and sources that don't even mention the subject. Not much by way of "significant coverage". I've read the arguments made in the previous AFDs but I don't really agree with the suggestion that one source (that I can't seem to find) would meet our existing WP:GNG criteria. ~~Though not a reason for deletion, the obvious WP:COI does not help and there's probably a username violation in there too.~~ Stalwart111 11:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of the sources aren't very in depth, but there's a few pages about the company in Neil Taylor's Document And Eyewitness: an intimate history of Rough Trade (Hachette UK, 2010). Joly MacFie might be more notable than his companies (this and Punkcast). --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Regardless who wrote it, there seem to be enough sources and the article, despite the COI, is not promotional. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I admit to a direct interest in the article, which I created. I did my best to maintain NPOV and use available secondary references. I believe maintaining an accurate article is especially important now as the recent 'Punk: An Aesthetic' by Jon Savage contains a major error, misidentifying MacFie of Better Badges as KifKif of Fuck Off Records. Note that this article survived an earlier AfD soon after it was created. In response to Colapeninsula above, I think that - in the case of Better Badges - the company is more notable than MacFie, and it has changed ownership. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note While any AfD stands or falls on its merits, if you look at the contribs of the nominator, it would appear to be a WP:SPA, what's more an inexpert one. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the issue is the suggestion you have a direct conflict of interest, not just an interest an the original author. You are not required to declare a conflict of interest but conflicted editing is always strongly discouraged, and it would be good (for other editors) to get that cleared up. Regardless, it would be good if you have a few more sources to contribute. I'm always open to being convinced. Stalwart111 07:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there would seem to be some underlying COI in the nomination, too, which doesn't help. Stalwart111 08:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but two wrongs don't make a right :) I have a direct interest in the subject of the article. I am a seasoned Wiki editor and this is only one of many articles I have contributed to. Which is why I have been careful to maintain NPOV and secondary references, where possible. I wish there were more to find, but, as people get around to writing histories of the period, they are appearing, however inaccurate. I will look into adding some from the Rough Trade book mentioned above. BTW which source could you not find? Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and respect your added comments. The linked sources in the article were fine (the links themselves) I just couldn't find any additional ones having done a general Google search. But I respect the views of those above for whom the sources were enough. Look forward to seeing anything else you can find. Stalwart111 08:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - understand what you meant now. The one I "couldn't find" was the one mentioned in the previous AFD. Doesn't matter now. Have also struck my COI comment and username comment. Stalwart111 09:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paging through Google Books there are a few. I've added a couple, although not this one that I loved but deemed too trivial, from a book on Tom Robinson - "By the following spring, one of the best sellers at Better Badges mimicked the TRB clenched-fist logo, but bore the legend 'Gay Whales Against The Nazis'. " - an indicator that BB was pretty apolitical back in the day. Unlike under recent management, where I found a ref to the firm making half-a-million anti-IRAQ war badges in the early 2000's.

Yeah, for lack of large in-depth articles, I would be including a few of those less in-depth passing mentions. Why not? They might not help with depth but they do contribute to breadth - something some are more willing to take into account than others but still worth considering. Stalwart111 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of depth, punk rock in general, and Better Badges in particular, are gaining recognition as pioneering P2P media. I've added an EL to a talk by MacFie at a New York Law School Copyright Conference that touches on this. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if mainstream media pick up on that then notability would be put beyond doubt, I'd say. But the primary source is a good start. I'm still not convinced the subject meets WP:GNG but there's probably enough there to convince me it was notable to some people. Niche notability maybe? Anyway, I'm changing my !vote to neutral - a closing admin can weigh the arguments. Stalwart111 08:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Hello Wwwwhatsup. I don't think that I terribly need to respond but I will. Whether I have edited before without a username isn't relevent, but the instructions for deletion say that "You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure." Why are you pointing this out, if you say "any AfD stands or falls on its merits" then why even mention it? If I have a motive for doing this it isn't stronger than your motive for creating the article. I'm sorry if you feel like you have that many enemies here but accusing me like that I don't think helps you. If I do have a COI as you do it does not matter. If someone with a COI nominates an article for deletion out of spite and it shouldn't be deleted then no one will vote delete. That's the wikipedia's protection. If someone with a COI creates an article about their business and is the only editor, then anyone can nominate the article, and it will be at AFD. That's wikipedia's protection. Everything is going like it should. There's no reason to accuse me of spite because if my AFD had no merit it would get all keeps. Or am I wrong here, you're right I'm not that seasoned. If I'm wrong please tell me. Now I wish I didn't do this because people are accusing each other alot. I'm sorry if I seem angrered but I feel that you're accusing me. If the article's improved the it shouldn't be deleted that is obvious. But it seems like no one else edited it alot and it doesn't have alot of good sources. So I hope people see why I did it. Doesn't a company need more than a few passing mentions? I'm sorry for my long reply. MarioNovi (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it was me that suggested the duality of COI here. It's strongly discouraged in all cases, for a range of reasons and this is a pretty good example of a few of those. Anyway... Stalwart111 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was here [1] that he first accused me but you probably didn't see that. It's ok anyway. Thank you for your help. MarioNovi (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see SPA suggested there, not COI, but you're right, it doesn't matter. Both would be discouraged. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a regular purchaser from Better Badges in the '70s I found the wikipage informative, interesting and wholly free from any bias caused by asserted COI issues - despite it's origins being in the now distant past those days are frequently discussed on various forums and on facebook etc by collectors or members of interest groups from that geographical area, or that area of historical interest - these are impossible to reference as they are frequently transitory but I can assert that Better Badges is discussed and written about by many more people than the original owner Joly MacFie. Furthermore The article does not, in my view, advertise Mr Macfie to any greater extent than any other person mentioned. Online discussion groups are lucky that he is accessible enough to contribute to questions of historical accuracy when needed, and does so without bias or self-interest. It is certainly an area of historical significance, the business crossing the perceived gap between hippies and punks at that time and even contributing to a cultural unity. I wish I could give more in the way of practical support but I firmly believe the page should stay - it would be enlivened by pictures of some/all of the products. I have just used it as a reference and would have been hard pressed to have found some of the information as by the very nature of the business many of the original sources (such as fanzines) are transitory by nature and have long since disappeared except in the hands of collectors. I do not feel lack of external referencing, or the question of the bulk authorship, is enough reason to delete in this case and would urge that the page NOT be deleted.

(User slim tim slide 15.44 Monday 7th jan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimtimslide (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bad-faith nomination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think most people would agree that buttons, or badges as they were known in the UK, are, along with the safety pin, and spiky hair, one of the essential stylistic elements associated with punk rock. If you dig deeper you will find the reason for this is the formation of Better Badges in 1976, with its "Image as Virus" philosophy. Better Badges went on to make the majority of the punk badges. This is pretty well described in the 1981 The Face article that is the primary source. Later there were other significant contributions in terms of open-access fanzine publishing, resulting notably in the launch of i-D magazine, again sourced, and cassette duplication, utilized by Fuck Off Records, a pioneer in DIY. which needs better sourcing and detail, especially given, as noted above, recently published misinformation. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; not much in sources but probably just enough, and topic appears significant enough for an article. Peter James (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Baseball Bugs. Reasonably well sourced and established notability, if short and incomplete. Bad faith on the part of nominator. Rutebega (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I had initial suspicions, I do not believe there is bad faith on behalf of the nominator, perhaps a minor case of WP:COMPETENCE. I am happy that the deletion nomination has brought attention of other editors to the article. If you look at the talk page, I appealed for same 5 years ago. I have added a 'connected contributor' tag there, just to clarify my interest. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some details of recent coverage in the Rough Trade and Punk, An Aesthetic books to the talk page. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oop. Here's another source, hot off the press! Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2013 (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.