Talk:B.G. Knocc Out

Untitled

Knocc or Knock? The article had he knocced out Nate Dogg, but I changed the verb to the normal spelling knock. That being said, I don't know if the original poster systematically misspelled knock. RJFJR 21:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

West Compton East Compton

This guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.G._%28rapper%29 That guy is a different person right? Also The BG in both cases means the same thing, and this one came first? [1993, It's On (Dr. Dre) 187um Killa... RealG187 15:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG, this page is so fucked up. West Coast Ryda 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:989049460 l-2.jpg

Image:989049460 l-2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coverrealbros.jpg

Image:Coverrealbros.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the article

As of this revision, the page has unsourced content, content that cites a source but isn't verified by the cited source, and content based on unreliable sources and, at best, dubious sources. The sources are:

1. Genius is not a reliable source; this particular Genius article was heavily edited by KathyFellows, and it's probably not a coincidence that the Wikipedia article was edited by User:MsKathyFellows.
2. YouTube is generally not a reliable source, this particular video is not a secondary source, and there's no indication that VladTV in particular is reliable, either.
3. I can't tell what reference 3 is. However, I can tell what it isn't. It's not a peer-reviewed scholarly paper, despite a superficial similarity. It's not the proceedings of an academic conference, despite the URL. I rather do not think the publisher can claim the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we'd require of a reliable source, particularly one linking a living person to a gang.
4. Reference 4 is an interview, not a secondary source. It may serve as a source for the name change, but little beyond that.
5. DubCNN, reference 5 and several of the others, is not a reliable source. While it has the appearance of a magazine, its goal is promotion; it openly says so on its "about" page.
6. See #5. This also seems to be rehashed from Facebook, decidedly not a reliable source.
7. Discogs is user-submitted content without editorial oversight, not a reliable source.
8. See #5. This one also doesn't (and due to age cannot) confirm the statement it's cited for.
9. Discogs again. See #7.
10. Discogs again. See #7.
11. Discogs again. See #7.
12. Discogs again. See #7.

Not one of them is a reliable third-party source. I'll gut the entire article and replace it with a stub based on some of the not-totally-unreliable sources presented in the course of the deletion discussion. Huon (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually there was only one such source in the AfD that had any meaningful information about B.G. Knocc Out. Pinging Walter Görlitz and Atlantic306 who said in the AfD that there were sources that would allow us to expand the article and "a lot of coverage to wade through", in case they think I missed something relevant. Huon (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like I supplied seven such links, but only five seems to still be active now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree about the sources mostly but regarding DubCNN's about us page it says it promotes previously ignored subjects but that could just mean it features them, and that the videos are supplied to them for promotion but isnt that the same for all videos supplied to any source reliable or not?, so it could just be awkwardly worded and not actually paid-promotion in the articles, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, you're of course welcome to expand the article based on the sources you found, if they indeed are reliable and have anything meaningful to add. Atlantic306, from their "about" page: "We commonly use both .mp3 and .wma format for audio we provide, both format’s are recognised and used worldwide and we feel are the best for means of promotion." They choose their audio formats based on their capacity for promotion. I see no indication that the text isn't equally meant to promote the subjects, whether it's paid for or not (note also the grammar error, not quite an indication of thorough editorial oversight). Huon (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're not improving the article based on the sources but instead are suggesting others do the work? I responded to an AfD and have no investment in the subject and will not be working on the prose of this subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Yes, in my opinion the sources other than the one I used are worthless. If your assessment differs, you're welcome to make the best use of the sources you found that you can; that's not my job. My investment ends with getting rid of poorly-sourced WP:BLP-violating content. Huon (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources provided at the AfD that showed the subject is notable. You're welcome to be to make all the claims you would like, but it's obvious to me that this as well is a worthless endeavour. Do not ping me to this discussion again. The only discussion I'm interested in is your topic bans. Please let me know when they happen. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I origninally pinged you because you seemed to see more of a potential for improvement and expansion than I do, and I didn't want to significantly shorten the page behind your back without giving you an easy opportunity to review and, if possible, improve my work. I will try to remember not to bother you again in similar situations. Huon (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)