Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett McElvaine

__NOINDEX__ Article listed on Votes for deletion Apr 20 to Apr 26 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:


 * Vanity page of high school student. No google hits outside own website. -- Decumanus | Talk 23:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph refers to why this article shouldn't be deleted. The second is legal information my company requires us to note in all discussions of an artist&#8217;s contract.--Virgin 03:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that "the first paragraph" is "I posted the article in question..." below, and the second is "2KSounds Corporation is..." below that. This discussion is hugely disordered... people are posting replies above what they're replying to. Marnanel 21:23, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * I posted the article in question, therefore I of course vote No to deleting it&#8212;though I understand that Brett McElvaine hasn&#8217;t reached anything close to &#8220;Celebrity Status,&#8221; it&#8217;s merely my job to do any sort of publicity that comes our way. I was looking into Wikipedia as a platform for Mr. McElvaine, and hoped that your website would be interested in gathering information on forthcoming mainstream artists.  I work for Immortal Management (an EMI company) and a friend of mine who represents Katy Rose mentioned that Wikipedia is a good launching site for such information.  He is by no means &#8220;a wannabe nobody&#8221;&#8212;in fact he recently signed a joint venture with EMI&#8217;s 2KSounds label, and is working out the details of his debut record.--Virgin 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:54, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * 2KSounds Corporation is a holding company for it&#8217;s operating subsidiary, 2KSounds Inc., which is an integrated music company located in Woodland Hills, Calif. 2KSounds locates and promotes new musical talent, and produces and distributes their music through a variety of methods, including joint ventures with major labels, sub-labeling and partnerships on albums by existing artists. Most significant, 2KSounds has entered into a direct distribution agreement with EMD, a division of EMI, one of the five major world-wide music companies, under which EMD will distribute all of 2KSounds music offerings. Statements about the company's future expectations, including future revenues and earnings, and all other statements in this press release other than historical facts, are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The company intends that such forward-looking statements be subject to the safe harbors created thereby. Since these statements involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change at any time, the company's actual results could differ materially from expected results.--Virgin 03:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * What the HECK does this have to do with anything? RickK 03:25, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Might want to check Robert S. McElvaine by the same user, looks like a copyvio. And if Brett McElvaine goes away, fix Riley Keough. RickK 03:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity of wannabe nobody.  Postdlf 3:33 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity page of a wannabe. DO'Neil 03:35, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Kill it. Robert S. McElvaine appears to be almost notable, but his kid ain't. -- Cyrius|&#9998 16:44, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. DJ Clayworth 19:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. The article links to a seemingly legit website that appears to have been made by Virgin Records.  However, the site also says that he's been released from his contract with Virgin.  IMO, it throws the legitimacy of all his claims into doubt, including his romantic link with Elvis' granddaughter and his personal "thank you" to Courtney Love.  This whole thing needs serious substantiation. - Lucky 6.9 21:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete all (Brett McElvaine, Maroon Pierce, and Katy Rose). Nobody in particular. Somebody tell User:Virgin that WP is not a free advertising service. Grr. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:36, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maximus Rex 03:37, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. I am not looking for a &#8220;free advertising service&#8221;&#8212;as I understood it, this encyclopedia is an open source of information&#8212;and that is exactly what this article is&#8212;a source of information on a forthcoming musician.  Your assumptions are inmature, and obviously weren&#8217;t discussed with any of Mr. McElvaine&#8217;s representitives, his management, or his record label.  Just as any other article, this article was written so the uninformed can be informed.  The article doesn&#8217;t advertise anything in any form.--Virgin 04:12, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it just lies. RickK 04:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for me to contact your management? I feel as though the admins evaulating my articles are making assumtions based on false information and have made no attempt to contact anyone else associated with my client&#8217;s label. Brooke Barnett c/o EMI Special Markets 338 N. Foothill Road Beverly Hills, CA 90210 --Virgin 04:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a corporation. We don't have a "management".  Why is an EMI representative making lies about Robert McElvaine's son?  RickK 04:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no one who works above you that I could contact? What gives you reason to say there are lies in the article if you haven't contacted his management for a statement? --Virgin 04:36, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Works above him!? You think there's employees here? -- Cyrius|&#9998 04:45, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * If we have to ask people who are paid to talk about him to find out who he is, he's not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. To be blunt, if you can't tell why so many people have labelled this as advertising, I suggest you find a new line of work. This article is such an amateurishly obvious attempt to sell this person that it isn't funny. -- Cyrius|&#9998 04:46, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Very well. I'm obviously fighting a losing battle, so I'll attempt to discuss the issue further at a later point with another admin.  I will accept the fact that "he's not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia."--Virgin 04:59, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Ms. Barnett, I've been playing around on Wikipedia only for a short time, and believe me, I'm not an administrator. Information here is freely shared, but it's the kind of information one might find in a print encyclopedia, only without the limitations of paper.  Simply scroll down this page to see a number of individuals self-aggrandizing themselves.  If your client is for real, and I believe he is given my neutral vote, his career is at too early a stage to warrant an article, at least in the opinion of we who have chosen to speak out on the issue.  Self-aggrandization and advertising tend to be frowned upon.  This isn't to say that commercial products and services aren't covered.  They are.  But they are notable products and services which have made an impact on society (or at least have a claim to fame, if not notoriety) and are presented in the neutral point-of-view of any good encyclopedia.  When your client hits the CHR charts, an article would be heartily encouraged.  Or, one may just appear on its own from an adoring fan. By the way, I have an old friend from back in high school who is now a heavy-hitting record producer.  I wouldn't dream of suggesting that he use Wikipedia as a springboard for new talent.  To sum it up, this simply isn't the place for that kind of promotion.  Good luck on those first million albums.  - Lucky 6.9 06:26, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * You're far more magnanimous than I am...I personally hope the worthless little $#!+ falls flat on his face. Trying to use wikipedia as a "platform" for a "forthcoming artist" indeed...  However, thanks to the marketing "genius" of his promoters, this has to be about the funniest dialogue I've seen on Wikipedia yet, and that counts for something.  (but can I change my "delete" vote to "delete with prejudice"?)  Postdlf 7:27  22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * And what a dumb name they picked to market him by... I really hate manufactured celebrities.  Postdlf 15:49  22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Exploding Boy 08:31, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Side comment: I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate to try to gain publicity via Wikipedia, as long as what you are publicizing is of some genuine importance. I've done write-ups on several Romanian bands that are basically unknown in the English-speaking world, certainly with some intent of gaining them publicity. However, these are all bands that have had hit songs in their own country. This doesn't seem to qualify, so DELETE. -- Jmabel 09:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article contains no encyclopedic material, and discussion above shows that the authors and promoters of it have no idea what this means, nor any intention of finding out. Poor kid, sixteen years old and lawyers picking fights for him already as if they own him, what a start in life. If we do let this through, I guess they'll then post their whole catalog of clients here. Andrewa 10:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Lucky 6.9, your statement was very well put. You have gained my full respect, and I thank you immensely for helping me understand the Wikipedia system better.


 * Thank you Jmabel and Andrewa for expressing your opinions MATURAILY&#8212;whereas, Postdlf did no such thing. Until Lucky 6.9&#8217;s post helped me understand the system&#8212;I honestly didn&#8217;t think it was that outrageous to figure on an open content website being a good platform for web publicity (though, NOT advertisements).


 * Comments such as &#8220;And what a dumb name they picked to market him by... I really hate manufactured celebrities&#8221; are personal opinions and have nothing to do with the actual content of the article. -- Unsigned, presumably Virgin
 * ...and here I thought we could be friends. Postdlf  00:39  23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I am removing the article on Brett McElvaine; though&#8212;as there was absolutely no copyright infringement&#8212;I am reposting the article on Robert S. McElvaine.--172.199.194.214 20:07, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * By that they mean they've blanked Brett McElvaine, and perhaps it's no surprise as there's a good risk that an NPOVed article is going to say things that aren't good publicity. They should count themselves lucky this old idea of mine wasn't adopted.
 * Please don't repost Robert S. McElvaine until the copyvio is properly resolved. (It just looks deleted above because of a typo.) You'll find RickK quite reasonable provided you are. Andrewa 20:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion