Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brianna Rieffel (second nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Closenplay (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 5 June 2007 (rv edit by Summers95926 (Talk | contribs) -- please don't delete content from this page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Brianna Rieffel

Brianna Rieffel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Still nothing on allmusic or artistdirect, limited number of hits on Google. Doesn't appear to meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. Delete. SarekOfVulcan 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Musicians Choice Awards linked from the page appears to be a vanity site, which requires only a $1 nomination fee.--SarekOfVulcan 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE!!! This article, in my opinion, meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. But as has been the case here, nobody here gives a crap about my opinion. Brianna's a legit singer who has captured the hearts of fans all over the world with her energetic sound and her heart-wrenching anthem The Promise. All references meet the criteria. Deletion of this article would be a huge mistake and could set a precedent for boycott. Summers95926 07:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Actually, we don't care much "opinions" in general. Rather, we seek out fact. For my part, what elements of WP:MUSIC and WP:V do you feel she fulfills?  RGTraynor  14:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the article was substantially rewritten since the previous AfD, the subject does not meet WP:MUSIC. I am also adding the albums and singles related to this singer to this deletion discussion. -- lucasbfr talk 08:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that if this goes, the others should go, but I don't think that changing the pages after the votediscussion starts is cool. Removed.--SarekOfVulcan 15:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --Fredrick day 08:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:MUSIC, in order to be notable, one of the guidelines is to have a refrence in other forms of media and NOT the musician/artist's website. And Miss Rieffel clearly has forms of those in her article, such as the Times-Picayune and other sources. Why is everyone going against what the guidelines are in WP:MUSIC, anyway?--Fanficgurl 1:37 4 June 2007 (UTC)
because we are not robots and those are guidelines not policy? Her mentions are within the content of her writing a song about Katarina and should be seen in that context - they are not really a commentary on her musical success or notability. I see nothing in then which would change my vote. She had her two minutes of fame for doing something nice after a disaster - great but she doesn't warrent an article. --Fredrick day 17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going against anything, actually. The guideline to which you refer is "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." (emphasis mine) The only such source in the article is the Times-Picayune reference. The others are from self-publishing websites (one from her mother), Ms. Rieffel's own site, Youtube and Mr. Summers' website.  RGTraynor  18:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not sufficiently supported by independent sources at this stage in her career. She sure seems to have one big fan and one determined stage mama, though. NawlinWiki 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One brief write up in a reliable source (the Times-Picayune) does not equate to notability. User Summers95926 has considerable experience with AfD and speedy delete process, but fails to do the one thing that would save the article: ADD MORE QUALITY SOURCES. I hate to be gruff but he has been told how the system works many times and in many places yet continues to complain about the "idiots" on Wikipedia instead of actually working to improve his articles. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very little in the way of non-trivial media coverage from reliable sources, does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO; also serious WP:COI. Save the article you've written and come back with it when she's a) charted on a national music chart (e.g. Billboard), b) has an RIAA certified gold record, c) gone on a national concert tour that is reported on in a reliable source, d) releases more than one album on an important independant or major label, e) wins a major music award (Musician's Choice doesn't count), f) wins or places in a major music competition (e.g. American Idol), g) has a song in rotation nationally on major radio stations, or h) is the subject of a half-hour or longer national radio or TV broadcast. Until at least one of those criteria are met, this article (and the ones about her albums) are non-notable and have to go. Closenplay 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not a user or anything, but I agree with the editors. Summers is nothing but a big baby and won't listen to reason. I have heard Rieffel's music and I think she's incredible, but as far as the sources to her article and such, I don't think she's really suitable for Wikipedia right at the moment. When Miss Rieffel becomes notable, then she can have her own article. Not right now, though. TwoTwic 11:41 June 5 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.167.92.26 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved general discussion down here to aid in keep/delete discussions above.

I am still contesting what you call a "nomination" and do not appreciate somebody taking the "hangon" box down. You may also be expecting to hear from Brianna's mother, who also happens to be her business manager. And believe me, I will NOT responsible for what is said! Summers95926 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

who really cares? she could the pope for the purposes of this AFD. We go off facts and sources not who's mom is going to phone. You can contest the nomination by providing sources that prove this person is notable. As for the hang-on tags those are for Speedy deletion notices and NOT for AFD notices. So please stop wasting our time with this waffle. --Fredrick day 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You need to check "Allmusic" to see that ANYONE can get their music on there. So if Wikipedia bases is artist's notability on if they are listed on "Allmusic", then they need to rethink that. All a musician has to do is mail their CD to Allmusic, wait 4-6 weeks and they'll be listed on "Allmusic.com". It has NOTHING to do with being signed to a major record label or notability, etc.breezee95


What about the other resources like nola.com or countrystarsonline.com? Don't they count? Apparently, to you, they don't. That's okay. Because when she becomes famous, her songs are on American and worldwide radio and she wins all sorts of awards, you'll look back and say to yourselves "What was I thinking?". Trust me! Summers95926 18:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The nola.com reference was written by Rieffel's mother, which you can't think constitutes an independent source. The countrystarsonline.com "Indie Spotlight" comes with this telling disclaimer: "Disclaimer: The Indie Artist Spotlight feature is an advertising vehicle specifically designed for Indie Artists. Being a featured artist/group does not necessarily constitute an endorsement by CSO." What I would say to myself, were this young girl to become famous amidst the horde of many, many, many hopefuls with self-published songs and self-promotional websites, was that like every other encyclopedia, Wikipedia waited until she became famous before declaring her to be. If you think we're being unfair in our assessment of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, however, I invite you to present the same vitae curriculae to Britannica or Encarta and gauge their take on Ms. Rieffel's notability.  RGTraynor  18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what the purpose of Wikipedia is as far as an artist's success is concerned? Some of her fans put her on Wikipedia and although I appreciate their efforts, we don't care one way or another if she gets deleted. I'm sorry to say, but as far as I'm concerned, being on Wikipedia DOES NOT give an artist credibility or notability. What gives an artist notability or credibility is the hard work they put in each and every day working at their craft. Less than 1% of Brianna's hits to her website come from this Wikipedia site. Brianna has achieved much success and none of her success has anything to do with whether or not she is listed on Wikipedia. Her music is listed on iTunes, the largest download retailer there is. Sorry if you think being on "Allmusic" is better SarekofVulcan, but to be listed on "Allmusic" all I have to do is mail them one of her cd's and voila!!! She'll be on Allmusic. So, SarekofVulcan, being on "Allmusic" doesn't mean you have made it in the music industry. ANYONE who has a CD can be listed on there. All the musician has to do is mail them their CD and wait 4-6 weeks, and you are listed on Allmusic.com. Her music is also played on radio stations in Louisiana. As far as Google, when you Google "Brianna Rieffel", the first 8 pages have various links to topics relating to "Brianna Rieffel". Guess you consider that a limited number of hits. Seems like we've been down this road before on Wikipedia. Oh and Hey Fredrick, Brianna's had more than "2 minutes" of fame as you call it. She was known and a paid singer/cast member in a show in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee and that was a whole YEAR BEFORE she wrote the song on Katrina. She is also a songwriter affiliated with BMI. All of you wiki's can keep trying to knock her down because, she'll just keep on keeping on WITH OR WITHOUT WIKIPEDIA. User:Breezee95 — Breezee95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You go, girl! See, guys, THAT is Brianna's mother. You were warned. Summers95926 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I can say is her observation that Googling "Brianna Rieffel" returns links relating to "Brianna Rieffel" conclusively demonstrates her perpiscacity. She sure showed us.  RGTraynor  20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In English, please... Summers95926 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the simple version - without decent sources this article will be deleted. Currently the sources are crap, if they remain crap - this article will be flushed. --Fredrick day 20:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flush away. She doesn't get her fan base from Wikipedia users. Without the less than 1% hits per month she gets on her website from Wikipedia, it won't make a difference. User:breezee95/breezee95
I'm not really sure what the purpose of Wikipedia is as far as an artist's success is concerned? -- there is no purpose of Wikipedia related to an artist's success. You are right that being here does not give an artist credibility or notability. I'm looking forward to her having enough of both to rate an article -- but as it stands now, she doesn't appear to meet the criteria for inclusion set forth in WP:MUSIC, which do not speak to talent or dedication. --SarekOfVulcan 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting sick and tired of your total disrespect for Brianna. Sharon's right. Brianna doesn't need you. Her fans love and respect her so much. Your lack of respect makes me want to throw up. Delete her if you want, but you'll regret it later, I promise you that. Summers95926 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no feelings about the girl either way - she's just another in a long line of NN people who end up at AFD - I'll struggle to remember what we were talking about in a week - that's just the nature of wikipedia. It's nothing personal, just trying to ensure that wikipedia is not used for spam or adverts. --Fredrick day 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll make this point. The closing admin isn't going to be interested in the subject's mother's opinion, nor are they going to be interested in campaigning or pro/anti bias. They are going to use their own judgement supplemented by valid comments on this page to assess whether this article meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. This isn't a chat site or fan forum. If a user genuinely believes the subject to match the criteria then they are best to back their points up with references to official Wikipedia policy or say nothing. That isn't a criticism or an attack, just a statement of fact.ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NawlinWiki, Brianna has more fans than you will ever know. Quit disrespecting her! You only wish you could be as great as she is! Summers95926 21:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully request you read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia before further editing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the only two Wikipedia users to oppose deletion of this article are User:Summers95926, who describes himself on his talk page as a "friend" of Brianna Rieffel, and User:Breezee95, who describes herself as Brianna's mother. There's a definite issue here with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If Brianna is really notable, someone will want to write an article about her other than her friend or her mom. NawlinWiki 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
more of a professional relationship I think - he seems to the webmaster for her site (he also seems to be editing other articles on that basis). he's currently soliciting her legions of fans to come and tell us all what they think of us. --Fredrick day 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the webmaster of her FAN SITE Brianna's World. Breezee IS her mother Sharon. I AM friends with both. You make these out as if they were "claims". They are the absolute FACT. Yet, you don't give a damn about my opinions, so why do I even bother?! I don't "solicite" ANYTHING. Her fans care about her so much... and YOU DON'T! 'Nuff said. Summers95926 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click here to read the discussion and Click here to express your opinions towards these "editors". - how is that NOT soliciting? --Fredrick day 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call it what you want, but to me, it's expressing an opinion. Summers95926 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be looking at WP:SPAM (and I am neutral on faith assumptions currently). If this article is deleted then may I suggest it be protected to prevent recreation? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon is done with you, and so am I. I hope this festers inside your mind for the rest of your lives. Brianna's already WON because she got the recognition, despite what you decide to do. "Free" encyclopedia, "fair use", MY ASS!!! Summers95926 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've chosen to violate Wikipedia policy, I do not see how you can complain. As for "fair use", the image deletion notices on your talkpage indicate your ignorance of the law. I'll repeat that one more time. The law. You have had sufficient opportunity to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy and the law as it applies to image fair usage but clearly consider yourself above such concerns. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever! Like I said, I'm finished dealing with this. It's obvious I'm not getting any help here, so I'm gone! Summers95926 22:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users including myself have offered to help you a number of times by pointing you in the direction of appropriate policy pages. You either have ignored them or have not asked anyone to clarify things that are unclear to you. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me being one of them, leaving myself, among others, convinced that they know they have nothing, or else they would substitute sources for invective. They sure seem to be fighting their corner very ferociously for folks who don't claim to care about the outcome or the article. Presuming there's a "they" ... take a look at this edit [1]. The plot thickens.  RGTraynor  23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the user's comments here. Leads me to think either the user is a profound liar or they are committed to breaking WP:POV on any article which interests them. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually recommend assuming good faith on the Nora Greenwald case. Mike Summers does indeed host fan pages for both Greenwald and Rieffel I don't find it that unlikely that Greenwald would make her desires about her article known to Mr. Summers. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That issue was already resolved. You are all attempting to discredit me as someone who is legitimate and I am getting very angry. You better knock it off right now! I said I was finished with dealing with this, yet you're still going. STOP IT NOW!!! Summers95926 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an (IMHO) much better response to an AfD nomination, please see "an important Howdy" at Talk:Tom Smith (filker).--SarekOfVulcan 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon asks, "If they delete Brianna's, then they FOR SURE need to delete this one!!!!!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein_%28singer%29 Summers95926 08:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well AFD it then if you think it's not notable. Otherwise your constant whining is getting a little grating. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Fredrick day 08:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me, whine?!? You call me a whiner while you come with some way to discredit me? I'm through wasting my time with all of you. I tried being civilized, but I wound up getting attacked! If this is the way you wanna treat me, then you can go straight to Hell!!! I work in television and I am a wrestling commentator! Brianna Rieffel is a talented singer! Wikipedia is supposed to be a "free" encyclopedia, but I guess policies, criteria and rules have dictated this supposedly "free" service. My apologies to ŞůṜīΣĻ for my conduct (I did read what you suggested), but I am through being attacked by these people! We have other places to be than to deal with the likes of them! Summers95926 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Klein article would pass WP:MUSIC by way of his membership with the The Boogie Kings.  RGTraynor  15:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brianna_Rieffel_(second_nomination)&oldid=136116838"