Talk:Rob Stone (businessman)

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: done Kotniski (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mediaevent/Rob Stone → Rob Stone (businessman) — move from sandbox to live. Mediaevent (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - at the moment it's far too promotional in tone. When and if it's ready for mainspace, it should be moved to Rob Stone (businessman) (move request amended accordingly). – ukexpat (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

updated tone thank you for this feedback Mediaevent (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready for prime time Article lacks references. One article "posted by Rob Stone" does not constitute adequate reliable coverage from third party sources, hence his notability is in question. It sounds from his bio that there ought to be adequate sources out there, but I would find them before moving this to article space. Have you tried Variety as a source? other trade rags? How did Mediaevent garner this information? I hope it does not reflect original research or possible conflict of interest. --Bejnar (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
added reliable sources, more info - identified sources where information was gathered that establish notability. appreciate the feedback. Mediaevent (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Footnote 1 is not to source that says he is asked for his opinion or that says that he is quoted a lot, instead it is an example of an opinion piece that he contributed. There is no evidence in the cited source that he was asked to contribute. As such as a source for the proposition that he is often quoted and called on for opinion pieces, it fails.
The sentence that the source in footnote 3 (the Billboard article) is supposed to support does not mention the clients Microsoft, XBox, or Diageo. The clients mentioned in the Billboard article are Sprite, Converse, Mountain Dew, Nike, Virgin Mobile, and Levi. If there is support for Rob Stone's representation of Microsoft, XBox, or Diageo as clients that source needs to be provided, otherwise the Billboard article supports only Converse, Mountain Dew, Nike among the clients named in the Wikipedia article.
With regard to footnote 5, Fader is not the first magazine to be available on iTunes, as the article points out a number of other magazines were first with selected content. Fader was the first to offer a full issue's content.
The source in footnote 6 (the Variety article) does not at all support the proposition for which it is cited. It neither mentions Green Label Sound nor Mountain Dew. Is it misplaced?
Possible factual errors include the name of the "Rubber Tracks" studio which is apparently "Converse Rubber Tracks" and its management is by Cornerstone, if Joyce V. Harrison is correct. http://www.associatedcontent. com/article/5880038/bands_and_brands_culture_discord_or.html "Bands and Brands: Culture Discord or Harmony?" Yahoo! Contributor Network is not considered a reliable source and is in fact on Wikipedia's blacklist.

In terms of citation the article is much improved, but overall the article still goes well beyond cited sources. The lead paragraph should be an introduction to the article and be a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should provide context and explicitly indicate the basis for notability. So, for starters, education should be moved out of the lead. Rob Stone's claim to fame (notability) seems to be that he is a pioneer in mixing music with branding, but the true pioneering was being done before he was born. Perhaps the most famous example is "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing (In Perfect Harmony)" the pop song which originated as a jingle in the groundbreaking 1971 "Hilltop" television commercial for Coca-Cola. And, of course, singing commercials have been around since the 1920s. See also the percolator song, a Maxwell House coffee jingle in the sixties that entered the pop charts as the Percolator Twist by Billy Joe and the Checkmates. As far as corporate sponsorship/ownership of bands goes, in 1968 Screen Gems created and owned The Monkees, and their infamous Kool Aid commercial with Bugs Bunny. Frankly, the article is still pushing the promotional in tone envelope. For example, the use of the word "successful" in the Nike paragraph is a dead give-away. Did Rob Stone learn anything from his unsuccessful Virgin Mobile campaign? Are you in compliance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? The article would possibly survive a request for deletion review, but it would be better if you could improve it a little more, and especially if you could put his work into its historical context and show (using sources) how he fits in. I made two minor adjustments having to do with quotations rather than explain them here. I hope you don't mind. I suspect that I could come up with more comments, given time, but this should give you a start. Good luck. --Bejnar (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.