Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExposedVocals

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 was delete. LFaraone 03:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ExposedVocals

edit
ExposedVocals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Coverage of the company amounts to local publicity-based coverage (the lede of the article (as of this version goes so far as to assert that local media coverage was the result of publicity efforts on the part of the CEO). No broader coverage outside of some blogs to be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to add more notable sources and removed CEO publicity actions. This is a well established company that has not focused on press efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowinket (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Editing the article so that it no longer claims that the press coverage was the result of a dedicated publicity blitz does not alter that fact. The inclusion of that fact in the article is not the problem; the fact itself is the problem. The Shorty Awards nomination is just that, a nomination. Even a win of this award would be of questionable value in terms of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The FedEx grant nomination appears to be a self-nomination. ExposedVocals wants this money, and may get it if enough people vote for them, but there is no indication they have yet been awarded the grant, and again, even if they are, that is not really a source of notability per Wikipedia standards. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue to add more notable sources including their Twitter account with over 30,000 followers. What is considered notable according to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowinket (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the problem is; Wikipedia is not finding enough notable publication of whom recognized Exposed Vocals an an authoritative source. Regardless of how popular the website is to the Indie Community all over the world. We will be editing the article throughout the day by adding more notable news sources. Thanks for your feedback! Dowinket (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the problem with Exposed vocals.It is a true account,true service.What Exposed vocals does is a much needed service and a good one.With exposed vocals Gold members get exposure to a wide variety of other services such as record labels,talent agencies,interviews designed to provide opportunities for him or her to move forward within their carreer as an artist.It would be sad not to Keep Exposed vocals.If you are considering removing Exposed vocals please evaluate the pros and cons of your decision.Exposed vocals,understands the struggle that most Unsigned Artists and Bands go through. Exposed vocals strives to level the playing field increasing the probability of business success for their members and the monthly fee of 2.99 is well worth the service. .

ShirleyMae Smith (sherockit62) member — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.162.171 (talk • contribs)


Neuroleptic : Keep the page. I think it's a true service which is expanding and it deserves a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.51.98.26 (talk • contribs) Catalyst: Keep, exposed vocals is a very great site for unsigned artist getting exposure and a very great way to get them signed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.77.178 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the following has appeared on the companies Facebook page;

Who wants to help Exposed Vocals fight this battle? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExposedVocals Let them know we belong!

Therefore, can we get semi-protection on here? Mdann52 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm confused.. Is there something wrong with raising awareness about an article that is in the process of being deleted? The comment on the Exposed Vocals page is simply asking for help arguing the case. Please show me where this is meant to be kept secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowinket (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:Canvassing points out the guidelines on this practice. In this case it's pointless because, as pointed out at the top of this page, this discussion is not a vote, it's a discussion that should be based on Wikipedia policies. None of the people coming to this discussion based on the Facebook post have addressed policies at all. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's assuming they came here based on the Facebook post. Since Wikipedia emphasizes so much on facts, let's keep assumptions out of this and focus on the discussion. There may be people closer associated with Exposed Vocals that could help argue this case and I don't think there is anything wrong bringing to the attention of the masses. Dowinket (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment True, that is an assumption I made. But whether it's valid or not, there have been a number of users contributing to this discussion who have never edited Wikipedia before, and who have made no useful contribution to this discussion. Remember, "I like it" is a weak argument to make at AFD. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based on the nature of the IPs and accounts here, I've filed an SPI. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good job Luke. I hope you catch some bad guys. The bottom line is, these are real people with legit concerns. Not fake accounts or people pretending to defend this article. I'm sorry these aren't the seasoned wiki elite that you are used to but they deserve to share their opinions just the same. Dowinket (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A search on Google yields nothing but their own website and a number of selfpublished sources such as Twitter and Youtube. In other words nothing that makes them notable. Thomas.W (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: That is a false claim. There are a number of articles written on the subject. Killerstartups.com (A prominent tech blog for startups published a review), The Patch News published reviews, Offline print such as the Record-review and new york monthly have also done reviews. All can be found on a simple Google search within the first few pages. Dowinket (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I'm not used to being accused of making false claims, but since the accusation was made by a user with 34 edits, all of them on pages directly connected to ExposedVocals, I don't really take it seriously. Thomas.W (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I'm Sorry, I do not mean to offend you. However, you are stating "A search on Google yields nothing but their own website and a number of selfpublished sources such as Twitter and Youtube." That is not true and anyone reading this could search "Exposed Vocals" in Google and read all of the reviews. Please explain how the Front page of Google lists 7 sources and you've only named 3? Dowinket (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG, ORG, and its existence here is being prolonged by a whole bunch of SPAs (some of whom attempt to be constructive, others whom don't) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 00:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Judging the article on its merits, I have checked the fist 100 results in Google, and found nothing usable. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The unsigned artists community is constantly searching for resources to help expose their music. Since when is an encyclopedia based strictly on press coverage? Shouldn't Exposed Vocals get a page because it is another source of reliable information? Basically, Google dictates what Wikipedia publishes. The media dictates what Wikipedia publishes. This really has nothing to do with searchable resources? I find that hard to believe... Dowinket (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowinket (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Luke, stating repetitively delete, with out adding anything constructive is inappropriate. Accusing Myself and others who support this article of being sockpockets was inappropriate and it turned out you were wrong. I will continue to add New constructive things to add to this argument. Will you continue to be repetitive and just repeat what others say or with you eventually add something new? Dowinket (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if I am coming off rude. I seriously mean that. I find I am constantly being accused and attacked from every angle. I am simply defending myself and this article. I am working really hard to continue to add notable sources to the article and add constructive arguments. If forget to sign a post; I am accused of duplicating a keep vote. That wasn't my intent. I was told not to use comment so often. Instead I choose to use keep. I didn't look at it like a vote because we did not come here to vote. I seriously want to have a constructive discussion with you guys but you keep filing every report to smear users who would like the article to stay and making numerous blocking attempts to get this discussion over. This page is now semi-protected so that more people cannot contribute. This is unfair and the fact that this article is not being included Wikipedia is simply unhelpful. Dowinket (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not repeatedly stated delete. My striking of your second vote is well within policy. My SPI wasn't inappropriate, quite the reverse. The page was protected due to canvassed IPs and/or accounts that were being disruptive. It is common practice within AfD debates when canvassing has occurred, to stop COI people from getting involved. No one has "smeared" anyone. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, can we just move forward with this discussion then? I would really like to hear more than just people pointing out policy or guidelines. Dowinket (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still don't seem to get it. AfD is all about policy, rules and guidelines since that is what determines if an article that has been proposed for deletion will be deleted or not. That's why posts like "I like ExposedVocals so the article should stay" have no influence on the outcome, no matter how many of those "votes" there are. Thomas.W (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Killerstartups.com is one of the worlds most prominent sites that do reviews on todays best online platforms. Does the fact they recognized Exposed Vocals and ran a front page feature story show notability? Dowinket (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ExposedVocals&oldid=1089933625"