Talk:BurnLounge/Archives/2012

Sources Needed re: Laid Off Employees
Could we get some source citation for the last paragraph info on "employees laid of on August 23, 2007?" That paragraph should also be edited to make it conform to NPOV standards.

74.185.105.135 16:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Assertions of "Scam"
Two notes: first, as noted below, this article really does read as if its non-NPOV and basically a spam piece trying to sell the Burnlounge program. Second, if the article is going to be objective, it really ought to include the fact that there are a lot of critics alleging Burnlounge is a 'Ponzi scheme' or MLM pyramid - and that there criticisms seem to have merit. For example:

http://burnlounge.proboards92.com/index.cgi http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/blog/310 http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=5976 http://netmix.com/wordpress/burnloungecom-launches-viral-marketing-effort-in-new-york-city/ http://burnloungescam.blogspot.com/

68.52.36.162 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a hard problem. The first four of those don't work well as Wikipedia references because they're personal blogs and bulletin boards. The fifth refers back to Wikipedia, which isn't allowed as a reference here. Two of the acceptable sources that are available note that MLM schemes in general are risky, but none of them try to make the case that anyone has been screwed so far by this company.
 * There are some things that can go in the aritcle, like the high enrollment fees and that they are completely silent to the outside world about how much people can make from their investment. You have to pay to get any details. (I see from looking at those aforementioned bulletin boards that those details have leaked and are still unclear, but again they haven't been leaked to published sources, meh.)
 * What can go in is the fees and the lack of disclosure. There is also already a reference showing that one of the owners got into trouble before this company, but we have to be careful with that because it's indirect.
 * I'll play and see what can go in while staying neutral. --iMeowbot~Meow 01:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah. There is what looks like real documentation hosted at explainburnlounge.com, but there are verifiability issues because they are hosted by an outside party.  It's so convoluted and self-contradictory that it could just as easily be a parody :-o iMeowbot~Meow 10:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
Needs to be wikified and rewritten so it doesn't read like so much adcruft. Also not verified/sourced.--Isotope23 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to clean this article up to avoid any copright infringement. I am working on sources. I am sincere in my belief that this needs a wiki page. It is spreading wildly, has huge entertainment artists and players involved and deserves to be discussed/available on wiki. Hang on please. Intelligentguest 16:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Article has been cleaned up and wikified everywhere that I could see. Please point out any places that it is not up to par. I have also added verification in the form of the Fortune Magazine and Billboard™ articles. Is there more that needs to be done in this area? Intelligentguest 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the wikify tag can probably be taken off now. --Mason 18:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of things... is this article about "Burnlounge" the software or service, "BurnLounge Entertainment Group" the company, or both? Your opening should match the article name, i.e. Burnlounge is a {website/software/service} that {does something}.  Also, you've stated "Edwin McCain, Hootie & The Blowfish, Joel Madden of Good Charlotte, Ted Nugent and Rick Dees are all promoting Burnlounge."  Can you add a source for this?  Information in an article needs to be verifiable WP:V from a reliable source WP:RS.  I'm going to edit a bit for layout etc, but I don't know anything about Burnlounge so I'll leave it to you to fix up content.--Isotope23 17:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Masonprof did alot of what I was going to do already... I'd still consider rewriting the intro, and moving the info on people promoting BurnLounge out of its own section. It is short and could be merged with the 1st paragraph.--Isotope23 17:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. I can better see how it should have been laid out now. However, as for citing the artists involved in Burnlounge, should I post those as external links? Or post them here and let someone more qualified than I put them in? Intelligentguest 19:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 19:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oooh neat, I got a citation to work. Ok, I'm off to cite my sources. Intelligentguest 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're getting the hang of it Intelligentguest. Tags will be off the article in no time...--Isotope23 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Isotope23 (and others) - I have removed any POV issues. I have cited and verified all statements. I have cleaned it up and you guys helped (or mostly DID) wikify it. What is left to get this clear of deletion? I'm new to this. What else needs to be done to improve it? TIA, Intelligentguest 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"BurnLounge is currently in beta version 0.9 and the 1.0 version is scheduled to unveil May 19th and 20th, 2006." I believe that this date has slipped, the company is now saying that 1.0 will be introduced at its Las Vegas conference on June 9. --72.70.13.30 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

--- Perhaps qualify the number of independent retailers, the number is approximately 38,000 as of July 1, 2006. Also wondering why this listed in the category of online music stores. --Fuzzytek 14:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam
As this article survived AFD, it seems that it needs work to keep it from sounding like spam or otherwise a positive endorsement of the music service. I am not sure if listing celebrity endorsements helps matters here. Seems also to be a bit in violation of WP:POV.

Roodog2k 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the celebrity endorsements were part of making sure that it was notable. I've got no problem yanking them, but then you have to deal with the next editor who says "why is this notable?" I don't think the endorsements make it notable on their own, but they add credibility. Open to suggestions! Intelligentguest 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its been agreed (for now) that it is notable, as the article survived AFD. The celebrity endorsements seem to smack of "spam" and call into question a NPOV... and I suspect that someone else may use that as fuel to put this through afd again.  I thought about it myself, and am not sure how to proceed.  I may add a section that provides a fair comparison of music services.  I know nothing about the subject, so I won't be any good. Roodog2k 15:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you rough outline such a section, I'd be happy to try and flesh it out. Intelligentguest 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather than inventing the wheel, why not use a similar format as the itunes? Roodog2k 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's quite a page. Give me some time. I can see what you are saying there. The itunes page looks good. Thanks for the idea. Intelligentguest 18:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If we agree that this is notable with the fortune magazine and billboard magazine articles, how about if I pull the celebrity endorsements for the time being, until I can do a more thorough, itunes-like page? I don't see anything in the external links that would be spam. Thoughts? Intelligentguest 16:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, never heard anything so I went ahead with the removal of the celeb endorsements and removed the spam cleanup tag. I will update after June 9-10 when BL releases version 1.0 and has the conference in Vegas next week. Intelligentguest 13:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe in Wikipedia, but I am learning that not all you print is true! You should should get all your facts straight. Burnlounge can do so much more than you think! Do some real real digging! If you buy your own store you can sell locale music your best friends music people should learn before they print!!!!!!

Advert tag
This article looks like it's chock full of ad copy, that really needs to go away. "BurnLounge is the first, next-generation, community-powered digital music service enabling music fans to discover and enjoy music, as well as operate their own digital music stores and evangelize the music they love. Through this innovative model, BurnLounge provides record labels and artists with a new fan-driven promotional channel." isn't encyclopedic. At all. --iMeowbot~Meow 13:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work iMeowbot - Intelligentguest 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Advertising Video
As somebody deleted a sentence in this article and incorrectly attributed its inclusion as something I wrote (although it wasn't), let's discuss it factually. The sentence that was removed/replaced is this: The advertisement videos on each BurnLounge store, however, promote recruitment rather than music.   I have linked to a sample BurnLounge commercial here for reference. After having watched the linked video a number of times, I'll grant that the removed sentence can be a bit misleading as it does discuss how a BurnLounge store is setup and what a BurnLounge store can offer -- in many ways a legitimate advertisement... but it certainly plays as a recruitment video for getting more people to sign up as a BurnLounge seller. The final sentence in the video is "... to get in, register at this website", which certainly doesn't promote the purchase of music directly. Your thoughts? SpikeJones 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)