Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnlounge
- 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 of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 18:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Burnlounge[edit]
obvious vanity page Etamura 16:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is NOT a vanity page.
It discusses BOTH positive and negative sides of the burnlounge program.
It is a valid topic to have in the wiki. If itunes has an entry (and it does!), then Burnlounge certainly qualifies to have an entry.
Further, I created the page and I AM NOT a burnlounge retailer. It isn't selling anything. If you don't like the format or layout, edit it. But it is not a vanity page. Intelligentguest 16:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:CORP. rehpotsirhc 16:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Speedy Delete - I was wrong, this company does pass WP:CORP. Unfortunately the article is a copyright violation of this article. rehpotsirhc 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Keep - User has removed the copyrighted material. rehpotsirhc 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. It DOES pass WP:CORP. Burnlounge is featured in Fortune magazine http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/04/03/8373063/index.htm
Also Billboard Magazine http://www.ezilon.com/information/article_7990.shtml
In addition it is being touted by Hootie and the Blowfish, Ted Nugent, Joel Madden and many, many more significant musicians. So it clearly DOES pass WP:CORP Intelligentguest 16:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is not fully developed yet, the article has some vanity, and doesn't seem to be notable enough yet. --Mason 16:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment tagged for cleanup and verification. Article reads like complete adcruft, needs to be wikified, given a more encyclopedic tone, and the claims verified/sourced. It's also scraping WP:NOT crystalball clause IMO, as a beta of something that won't definitely be popular software when it comes out, or that has been widely adopted in beta. I could go either way on inclusion/deletion.--Isotope23 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's why it reads like adcruft... Rehpotsirhc just tagged it for copyvio. Speedy Delete as copyvio per Rehpotsirhc.--Isotope23 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no longer any copyvio on the page. Wow. I had never tried to create a wiki before. Doubt I ever will again!!! Don't Bite the Newbies For goodness sake! Intelligentguest 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in the Fortune Magazine Article over 10,000 users have signed up already in the "beta" form. So I dispute the crystall ball clause. Burnlounge is a factor now, and it valid for an entry in wiki.
This would also challenge the doesn't seem to be notable enough challenge from Mason.
I have removed the vanity. Intelligentguest 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added verification in the form of the Fortune Magazine Article and the Billboard™ Magazine Article in PDF form.
The article has been cleaned up and wikified where possible. I am wide open to suggestions. What else is wrong with it? Thanks Intelligentguest 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I didn't see anyone bite you, Intelligentguest. It looks to me like you were treated politely and with respect. Now that it looks like the article isn't going to be deleted, you should take your questions and comments about the article to its talk page. rehpotsirhc 17:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - They did, they did. I have marks. ;-) Ok, I'm off to the talk page to see what I need to do next. Perhaps a little more assumption of Hanlon's Razor instead of malice. I'm just trying to create an entry on a subject that I think is valid. I'm not trying to "pull a fast one" on anyone. As you can see by my previous entry, I'm growing thicker skin. I'll be ok. Thanks for asking though. ;-) Intelligentguest 17:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I said "scraping" WP:NOT, not that it was actually violating it. You may notice I also didn't render a delete opinion; I just said I had no strong feelings one way or another... and a thick skin is pretty close to mandatory when people are mercilessly editing your work!--Isotope23 17:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete as this project is still in its beta testing. Which places it at issue with WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Roodog2k 22:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think this is a crystal ball deal. Burnlounge has 10,000 paying retailers at this point. You can buy music online at their sites. It is a working, functioning music download service right now. The beta thing is a technicality which covers the fact that for their official launch they will add some more functionality to the software and it will be "official." Finally, the "beta" period is supposed to be over in a month, so by the time you delete this, it will be valid again. And I certainly am not coming back and recreating it then. Again, this isn't a crystal ball, Burnlounge exists now, they are selling the mogul packages like crazy. There are tens of thousands of individual sites already up and running. It is a topic that should be in an online encyclopedia. We're not saying "there is going to be a Burnlounge service." It EXISTS now, and is in a "working beta" so-to-speak.
Also, I note that this page exists and isn't up for deletion: Windows Vista Intelligentguest 23:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment but Microsoft isn't going to go belly-up anytime soon. The weak in my weak delete vote comes from the fact that the software is still officially, by your own admission, in beta testing. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Roodog2k 13:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete This falls under the POV policy. Michael Ridge (aka Intelligent Guest) from Batesburg, SC, has a personal vendetta against Burnlounge. His comments above are anecdotal (70% rule), and he ties in his own discussion forum as a link. This is pure trash.Jen-n-tonic 20:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This page is very balanced and includes a fair bit of useful, factual information about Burnlounge as well as links to celebrity endorsements and discussion pages. If there are other discussion pages, ADD THEM to the list. The only other one I know of is abandoned and filled with garbage. Add to it or enhance it. Intelligentguest 01:47, 17 April 2006 (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.