What are you pointing at when you use the word “bogus”?
Do you mean where the performing artists are being denied their right to be acknowledged as the performers under their artist name without having agreed to forego that right?
I’ve found a release from a commercial publisher which may well be doing just that to a symphony orchestra and many other artists on the compilation.
I am against abusing artists in such a way. And think that such abusive releases should only go into the Musicbrainz database when the ethical issues are highlighted on that release’s page.
I can see that bogus labels, bogus artists and bogus releases can all function as part of the abuse of the real artists.
I’ll make a case that they should be named prominently as bogus rather than deleted. If others have good counter-arguments favouring deletion please share them.
Musicbrainz is an encyclopedia of recorded music. It is/is planned to be the largest reference in the world on the subject.
Whilst the abuse of artists by mis-identifying them is deplorable, to be discouraged, and to be “called out” on Musicbrainz, it is important to the range and the completeness of Musicbrainz that the details of such abusive practices in widely avaialble recorded music be captured for future encyclopedia users and musicologists.
One problem with this “name and shame” approach is that if errors are made then lawsuits might follow.
Maybe that commercial publisher I mention above does have the legal and ethical right to change the names of the artists on the compilation?
If MB publishes erroneous accusations of “bogus and abusive” then what? Or even if the accusations are correct can MB be dragged into costly legal dispute with a deep-pocketed music publisher?