Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richie Branson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No evidence provided that he meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BIO, despite the large number of protesting comments by various WP:SPA accounts and IP editors. Jayjg (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Branson

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

Disputed PROD. 1) Fails WP:MUSICBIO. 2) Whether or not this person's company meets WP:COMPANY (I do not think it does), this person would still fail WP:BIO. 3) PROD was disputed on basis that he composed a song that charted nationally, but a) outside of a local newspaper's interview with this person, I can only find one hit that supports he composed this song and I'm not sure how reliable it is, and b) I can find no support outside of the local paper's interview that reliably indicates the song charted (specifically, Billboard, the chart in question, says it never charted). Singularity42 (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If you are referring to the BMI page in the reference list that shows Richie as a writer on Homegurl, that's about as reliable as it gets. BMI is a major performing rights organization that has a reliable catalog of songs. Both Bone and Richie are BMI affiliated songwriters. There are also plenty of bona fide youtube videos showing Richie and Bone on set discussing thier collaborative efforts. As for the link you provided from Billboard, that is not "Homegurl" by Bone. That is a song called "Homegurl" by an artist named Slim Thug. There are many different songs that are called Homegurl and unfortunately the song you referenced is inaccurate and not the one that we are discussing in reference to Bone or Richie Branson. This is the correct link FROM BILLBOARD clearly showing Bone's Homegurl as a billboard charting song (at position 30 on the chart): http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/chart-search-results/singles/3117453 . Billboard.com doesn't adequately archive past charts and any music industry insider knows you must go to their billboard.biz service to reliably search through older records. By providing a reliable reference showing the song did succesfully chart on billboard, the article satisfies WP:MUSICBIO AnnRicks (talk) — AnnRicks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Keep Good banter! It should be noted that the newspaper article is from the San Antonio Express-News, a well recognized news source established in 1865 and the 3rd largest newspaper by circulation in Texas. They have offices in various Texas cities and Mexico City as well. That being said, it can be assumed that it is a credible source of information and taken a little more seriously than a just "local newspaper". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.0.106 (talk • contribs) — 137.200.0.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. This does count as coverage by one reliable source. Singularity42 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I agree with the notion that BMI is a reliable and notable source of gathering information on whether or not someone has interest as a writer in a particular piece of musical work. BMI contains a consistently mantained catalog of registered musical works. Music publishing companies rely on the information contained in the BMI registration catalog in determining whether a writer is eligible to receive a publishing deal based on his or ownership in a particular song or collection of songs. The way I see it, you have a reliable source showing the article subject is a songwriter for a particular song, another reliable source showing that particular song made it on a national music chart, and another independent source confirming both of those facts. Notable. Balla33225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC). [reply]

  • Comment by nominator If it can be verified that he is the composer of the Homegurl song in question (which right now is not clear, as every source provided has a somewhat different list of composers), and if there is a consensus that the song is notable in the context of the criteria at WP:COMPOSER (which I don't agree with at the moment, as WP:NSONGS says charting only makes the song "probably notable"), then the article should be kept. For now, I am not withdrawing my nomination. Singularity42 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by article author I think it is pretty clear Richie was involved in this work, simply because the sources that do show Richie listed as a writer/composer are the most legitimate out of all of them: The official database of a nationally recognized performer's rights society and a newspaper article from one of the largest newspapers in its respective region. It can be assumed that the information available in both of those sources is thoroughly vetted by its editors. Since Richie and Fleetwood operate as partners in their composition work, different sources (that aren't as reliable as the above mentioned ones) offer slight variations in the list of composers. It should be noted that none of those sources are as reliable as the two confirming Richie as a composer and therefore should not be given as much weight as the sources used in this article. Here are my thoughts on notability of the song: Besides the fact that the song charted on billboard, the song garnered enough attention from the music industry to receive remixed version featuring three notable hip-hop artists: Grammy nominated recording artist Bun B and grammy winners The-Dream and Rick Ross. One of many sources confirming this: http://down-south.com/audio/8373-bone-homegurl-remix-ft-rick-ross-a-bun-b.html In the hip-hop genre, only a song with notability would be able to atract the attention of such A-list recording artists. While charting makes the song "probably notable", the fact that grammy winners felt the need to become a part of the song's legacy makes it more than just "probably notable". AnnRicks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has wikipedia ever heard the term what goes around comes around? WP:BAND is WP:BAND I see it's real easy for someone who has no life to try to take down some one who has one and has worked hard for a career. He can argue this on so many levels, everyone who you have nominated or deleted in the past unjustly....will be on wikipedia anyway...so eventually you loose...go pick on the small fish because the sharks are going to start re-claiming the ocean. — 74.108.90.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - According to this link, Branson is not the composer of one of the songs in question, so that shoots down the main claim to notability. As for the rest, I'm not seeing any significant coverage - this link is nothing more than a press release from the artist. I don't see this passing WP:MUSIC. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually that link you listed shows Marcus Brown II, Demarcus Hamilton, and Renetta Lowe listed as songwiters/composers of the song in question. To be clear, Richie Branson is Marcus Brown II. Your link actually proves that he is a composer on the song AnnRicks (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I didn't find significant coverage of this person, and co-writing one song from an act that ALSO doesn't merit an article isn't much of a claim to notability. I stand by my "delete" comment. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that argument fails, as there's no indication that the song in question (much less the artist it was for) was actually notable compositions either. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, WP:MUSIC states "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable". Homegurl was ranked on significant music charts, which, according to WP:MUSIC, is indicative of notability. Also, the fact that two grammy-winning recording artists performed on a re-release of the song further indicates notability. If the song wasn't notable, why would grammy winning artists even bother with it? 137.200.0.106 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.173.98 (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)— 74.108.173.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That link has already been mentioned - but as neither the song nor the artist are notable enough for articles, I fail to see how the song is a "notable composition". MikeWazowski (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incorrect sockpuppets have to be sent no one influenced my vote I voted for what I think is right, after I verified research within the article. That is a (personal attack). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — 74.108.80.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A personal attack against who? You're posting from an anonymous IP, so we have no idea who you are. However, the admins that ran CheckUser in the investigation have confirmed the use of sockpuppets and the identities of the users involved. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets assume that is true, that does not change the facts, it's an attack on a legitimate article, the composition charted on a major music chart and featured two grammy award winning recording artists. Charted is Charted and the BMI link referenced above confirms the subject's involvement in what is a notable composition. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's where your logic fails. Were the article "legitimate", as you phrase it, it would not currently be at AfD. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your allegation that the composition is notable has two problems - 1) this discussion isn't about the composition, and 2) your claim that the song has charted is false, as this page at Billboard.com specifically states "This Song has never charted." Your main claim of notability doesn't exist. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the song has charted: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/chart-search-results/singles/3117453 (It is well documented that billboard.com's chart archives are inaccurate. Billboard.biz a better resource for accurate chart details. It should also be noted that the link you displayed is specifically referring to the Explicit Version single...not the radio (edited) version. Given FCC guidelines anr regulations, I would find it hard to believe any explicit unedited single would chart on billboard's airplay charts. Provide something that shows the edited version never charted. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How very.... "convenient" for you that the only proof you can offer is hidden behind a paywall. "It is well documented"? Please show me some of this documentation. Here's the edited version - Never charted. Not only that, This link from Billboard.com states "This artist hasn't charted yet" with anything. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, it is FREE to search the chart archives on BILLBOARD.BIZ, which is the OFFICIAL site of billboard's print publication i might add. my previous link was inaccuate. Like I mentioned, search the singles chart archive and tell us what you find. Have you even bothered to do this? http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/singles-chart-search 137.200.0.106 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked - and since the actual charts are still hidden behind the paywall, the search results are worthless. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if that was true no one would survive AFD and as you can see many do, because nothing is perfect not even AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, AfD is a tool used to debate the legitimacy of a new article. Legitimate articles end up on AfD all the time and are kept after a consensus is reached. Therefore, there is no logical failure in suggesting an AfD'ed article is legitimate. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur. Consensus is what drives AFD. The fact that this article is being considered for deletion through the AfD process indicates a need for consensus, either to keep or delete, and an uninvolved admin has yet to determine whether consensus exists. And as stated at the top of this discussion, AFD, like the rest of Wikipedia, is not a ballot. If you're puzzled by the difference between voting and gaining consensus, perhaps you're in the wrong venue. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm doing my part to help a legitimate article. There for the logical rough consensus is "Charted is Charted" and the BMI link referenced above confirms the subject's involvement in what is a notable composition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that your claim that the song charted appears to be false. "This Song has never charted" is pretty clear. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The logical rough consensus is "Charted is Charted" and the BMI link referenced above confirms the subject's involvement in what is a notable composition. How many times is the re-release stated above, not only that there are other works listed as well. Major Labels are not going to be interested in someone with no credible background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Considering Billboard.com's (NOT billboard.biz, that site reads like a music-industry tabloid on par with Weekly World News!) charts are the de facto standard for rating popular music, there's no valid argument against them being a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. How do you propose Wikipedia deal with two different reliable sources which contradict one another? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I posted above, since the results from the .biz site are hidden behind a paywall, it's useless as a reference. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
False, any one can freely go to their chart search page and pull up results. I found four results indicating the song charted. Did you not? Either way, you have two reliable sources indicating the song charted, and one that doesn't. Special:Contributions/137.200.0.106|137.200.0.106]] (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you coming up with a second source that the song charted? As for the .biz site, when you try to actually look at any of the results the search returns, those results are hidden behind the paywall - thus verification is impossible. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about the San Antonio Express-News Article that states the song charted? (http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Hip-hop-producer-beating-a-path-to-success-789593.php ). I think we all can agree that the commercial press editors have much better resources at their disposal to get accurate information about whether a song charted or not, unless you're alleging that one of the largest newspapers in the United States failed to properly vet the fact that the song charted. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment personally I think if either one can be used as a reference than it should be, because if there was nothing there both references would state that. He has credits with a Major, its pretty clear Labels like Def Jam use producers an writers like him all of the time, that's why all you have to do is look and you can find credits for this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Billboard.com doesn't show the song charted, however there are numerous instances where charted songs/artists show up in the same manner on their website. Billboard.biz is the official page of their print publication and chart archive. When you search for the song, it brings up four results that indicate what charts the song appeared on. However, you cannot personally view the charts without subscribing. A third, independent and reliable major newspaper reports that the song charted and provides a position. The burden of proof seems to indicate the song charted more so than the fact that it didnt, as it can be safely assumed that the newspaper was able to get past the paywall and gather exact data about the song's chart performance and report it to the general public (people like you and I who lack such tools at our disposal). Personally, i don't feel my wikipedia editor sleuth-skills match up with those of a major news publication, so I'm inclined to agree with the facts of that news article coupled with the fact that billboard.biz at least shows a list of charts the song appeared on. With that said, the consensus should be that the song did indeed chart.137.200.0.106 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) But that's exactly what the consensus is NOT...not yet, anyway...which is why this article is under discussion in the first place. Billboard.com (as mentioned before, the de facto standard and a reliable souce) says no. BMI (a music licensing agency, also normally considered a reliable source) says yes. The San Antonio Express-News (a primary source at this point, since there's no attribution provided) got its information from somewhere...where? It certainly didn't make the determination independently. What is their source? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not also forget that we're discussing this with someone already shown to be a sockpuppeteer. Now then, let's break this down - as a musician, Branson fails every single criteria of both WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSICBIO. As a songwriter, the sockpuppeteer would have us believe he contributed to a notable composition - which is the only way he could meet WP:COMPOSER - however, neither the composition or the artist are notable enough for articles of their own, and coupled with the sourcing problems for that claim (of which a major national organization categorically states that neither the song or the artist ever charted), lead me to stay with my original view - the artist has no demonstrated notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me show you both how reliable billboard.com is as a source. this link from billboard.com clearly shows a song by Anthony David called "4Evermore" charting at number 29 on billboard's top 100 Hip-Hop / R&B chart. However, when you search for the same song on billboard.com, this link from the very same website shows that the song "has never charted". When you search for the song using billboard.biz's chart search tool, results show up indicating the song did indeed chart, although the actual chart is hidden behind a paywall. Sound familiar? It should. Now you see why no industry insider or real member of the press would trust billboard.com to verify whether a song charted or not. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you haven't answered the question of where the San Antonio Express-News obtained their information. Yours is the WP:BURDEN at this point. And you should likely log in to respond so as to avoid the ongoing concern that you may be a user who !voted previously, as noted in the SPI.
I do not know what sources a major newspaper uses to confirm their information. However, i'd imagine it's probably a little more solid than the free version of billboard.com (Which, Mike, also has a paywall as you can only view songs above number 50 on any chart as a free member of billboard.com. You have to pay to view the full chart). I might also add that I just proved that billboard.com isn't very accurate in their song "has never charted" statements...even with songs currently on the charts. At the moment there are 3 sources of information regarding the composition's charting performance: Billboard.com, Billboard.biz, and a well-known news publication. The one source that said Homegurl "never charted" has been proven to provide false information stating a song didn't chart when indeed it did. Another shows the charts the song listed on, but won't let you view the chart. The third source is a trusted source of news information. I have no reason to doubt the validity of the statements made in a widely circulated newspaper and I'm not sure why their sources should have to be revealed given their reputation. This doesn't appear to be some random tabloid article that people would generally look at with skepticism. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That gives us two conflicting reliable sources and a primary source with unknown attribution. That adds up to what is known as a "deadlock". Still no consensus. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore. Here is a link at the billboard.com proving the song charted as well. We now have proof of charting from the de facto source itself.137.200.0.106 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right title, wrong artist. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All sources seem to indicate Homegurl (He Gotta) as Bone's song. I've noticed other artists have songs named "Homegurl" so I'm sure the reason the (He Gotta) is coupled with the song's original name is for further clarification. The billboard.com chart linked by the IP user shows a song called "Homegurl (He Gotta)" by an artist named Bone at #24 on the chart. The song appears in an international performing rights organization's catalogue as "Homegurl (He Gotta)" and lists Branson as a composer. Also, I cannot find a single shred of evidence anywhere suggesting that another artist (besides the one connected with Branson ) charted with a song titled and registered as "Homegurl (He Gotta)". Upon seeing this, I'm not sure how there can be any argument that the song never charted. I'm calling WP:COMMONSENSE on this one. UncommonlySmooth (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)— UncommonlySmooth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'll concede the point on charting. However, I'm still unconvinced of WP:GNG compliance. My !vote stands. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote still stands Keep because enough evidence has been presented and everyone who voted keep did so with logic in mind, it did chart. And it is in-proper for some who voted delete to continue an argument that has clearly been proven. We can all just move on and focus on the AFDs that are really in need of deletion...Great job everyone the Deletes and the Keeps..topic meets Criteria for composers and lyricists WP:BAND 74.108.175.229 (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)— 74.108.175.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Now we have a consensus that Branson was a composer of a song that indeed appear on a national music chart. With that said, I see him meeting not just one, but two of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER: 1) Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition and 3) Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. It is feasible to argue that he fails #1 but impossible to argue that he fails #3 given the fact that his work was re-released in collaboration with lyricists who meet the criteria (Rick Ross , The-Dream and Bun B : All notable lyricists who meet the WP:COMPOSER criteria). While it may be a matter of opinion in regards to whether Richie passes criteria number 1 (I think he does), it is a matter of fact that his work was "used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer, or lyricist who meets the above criteria." Therefore, he passes WP:COMPOSER]. My !vote to keep remains, especially since the argument to do so continues to strengthen. UncommonlySmooth (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)— UncommonlySmooth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The amount of sockpuppet/meatpuppeting going on here is incredible. Believe what you want, but you do not have a consensus for your claims. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2011 (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/Richie_Branson&oldid=1069118053"