Jump to content

User talk:Soundvisions1/Talk/Archive/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rugby Leaguer & League Express

I have removed the speedy delete tag because there is no link to any page where the deletion is to be discussed or where an objection can be lodged. I know for a fact that the source of the image comes the newspaper itself and if you specify exactly the wording of the permission required then it should not be a problem to obtain.GordyB (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You only removed the {{deletable image-caption}}, not the {{di-no permission}} tag itself. The caption in question lacked a "link to any page where the deletion is to be discussed" as the image tagged for lack of proper licensing information via CSD i11, which is linked to via the {{deletable image-caption}} that was removed. CSD i11 states, in part: If an uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the uploader. The original uploader has been notified, according to the image information you are not the original uploader. Had the IfD tag been used it would allow for discussion. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The original uploader only created a Wikipedia account to upload that image so leaving a message is a waste of time because he won't be checking the account. I ask you again to wait whilst I contact the person responsible via email.GordyB (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see http://www.totalrl.com/company/image.htm GordyB (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

'Pandelirium' and 'Believe'

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Pandelirium, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! MadScot (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also deprodded Believe (Th' Legendary Shack Shakers album) with a similar rationale. Cheers. MadScot (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And also Swampblood on pretty much the same grounds. MadScot (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lotus (rock band)

Hi Soundvisions1. I just wanted to let you know that I've added some more sources to the article, which might address your concerns at this AfD. Cheers, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rusty Eye

COI. I added full names of 2 members. What's the COI? Thanks Blakvortrex (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Rowland

  • Just a friendly note. While the article could use some references, it does pass Wikipedia: Notability (music), so I've removed the deletion prod.

Criteria for musicians and ensembles

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Concord Records is certainly a major record label. (Mind meal (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

I did say "possible non-notable" for WP:MUSIC because as I did a search I found many press releases, concert listings, track listings, trivial mentions and such but not many detailed articles on the subject. At the time of the PROD there were only three albums listed, 1995, 1996 and 1997 and the description of the label did not meet criteria number 5 given the years those three albums were released. The labels article states "Originally known as Concord Jazz, it was established in 1972 as an off-shoot of the Concord Jazz Festival in Concord, California by festival founder Carl Jefferson, a local automobile dealer and jazz fan who sold his Ford agency to found "the jazz label I can never find in record stores." As the buy outs did not come until 1999 and 2004 with the purchase of Fantasy Records I hope you understand why the PROD was put in place and also why it said "possible non-notable" in regards to WP:MUSIC. I see you have greatly added to the discography and now I am satisfied the article does meet WP:MUSIC. Thanks! Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Some discussion might be in order

No original research policy says, under the "Synthesis of published material which advances a position" section, Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources.

The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies set up "sources" and all guidelines follow them, and, in the case of subject specific guidlines, refines them.

General notability guidlines define the terms, such as 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. To further clarify there is a footnote attached that reads "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (January 6, 1992). "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian. ) is plainly trivial."

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) further refines these Policies and guidelines. Under "Primary criteria" it says that a company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

It than defines what "secondary sources" are for this subject and they include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

  • Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.

Those are not my words. These are. A 528-page book solely about record label would be "non-trivial", while a one or two sentence/word mention of the label in an interview or record review "is plainly trivial". A record review is going to mention the label, that is a given. An article on any artist will more than likely mention the label(s) that the artists releases are on. For Wikipedia these would not make a business "notable" per guidlines. In the case of record labels the subject specific guidlines to follow would be Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The article in question is about a company and using the policies and guidelines an editor must decide if there is "notability" enough based on them. As I said to you at the AfD there in no "I" involved. The articles that are being used to establish notability are not about the subject of the article. The minor mentions contained are in relation to the subject of that article, not the subject of the Wikipedia article. What I look for in an article about one subject is significant coverage that comes from people not associated with that subject. In other words, and this is an example only, if one source ran an interview with an artist and it was their opinion they were "on a great indy label" and another source ran a record review from my favorite band and it happened to be on the same label I would not automatically feel "They are the best label in the universe so they need have their own article as they are an important indy label!" That brings in the "No original research" policy of "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources."

Thanks for trying improve Wikipedia, it can be discouraging and frustrating at times for whatever side of the discussion an editor is on. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cher Doll Records. Ty 03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH is irrelevant, as the article does not make any novel conclusions. There is no need to quote extensively from the guidelines, as I am familiar with them, and wikipedia is not a court of law. You might note that WP:IAR is a policy. I am not invoking that, but mentioning it to point to the fact that the important thing in all rules is the improvement of the encyclopedia, not the enforcement of rules per se, which need to be "treated with common sense and the occasional exception". That is what I do to the best of my judgement. A short mention may be trivial if its content is trivial; it may be significant if its content is significant. The bottom line is whether something will enhance or undermine the quality of the encyclopedia, which is there to provide a service to readers. Will something be useful content for them or not? We need to take the whole picture into account. Ty 03:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Never said it was a "court of law", I am looking at overall guidlines and policy and not trying to seek out one phrase that might allow this. Certainly if everyone used the ignore all rules policy nothing would ever be deleted and everyhting would be allowed, but if a reader does not know about a subject of an article it is our job to either make the article better or, if that is not possible, than we should apply the other guidlines. I entered this Afd because the business does not meet WP:CORP. You came into the discussion and said people might want to read about a band and when I informed you the discussion was not about a band you made it sound as though the article should stay because someone might want to read interviews and reviews of a band. It still makes no sense because the band mentioned already has an article on Wikipedia and those same sources, if not already, could be attached to the article. And you seemed to not know about the guidlines as you "drove right past" them in the comments in the Afd. WP:SYNTH is not at all irrelevant in the Afd as the editor who removed the PROD asserted that this business was important because a single band who had dealings with the business was notable. At Afd this same editor expanded on their comments by saying the bands single was going for "hundreds of dollars on Ebay". When the editor was told that the Afd was not for a band but for a label they responded with "citations" to establish the notability of the label. The citations given were not about the label, they were on the same band they had removed the PROD because of. WP:SYNTH Policy is very important here because this editor has combined "multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." Based on the citations they provided and the information that a single by the artist was being sold on Ebay and their conclusion is the article should stay because "It's a significant label in the history of American indiepop." What is better shown by this is that, perhaps, the band is significant in the history of American indieop. When you entered into the discussion and seemed to be using the same form of rationale - because the business is mentioned in a record review and an interview with an artist on that label - it is notable and should have it's own article I was confused. This is where everything falls into place at this point in time and space. I have learned nothing new about the subject of the article, only about a band that is not the subject of the article. And, to reply to what you asked - "Will something be useful content for them or not?", in this case I would say "no" because the article has no depth or details. At the bottom line I am asking for substantial, non-trivial, sources of information about this label. So far nobody has produced any. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved all the talk here. If you want to discuss it, then this can be the venue. If you want to discuss it, however, some accuracy would be helpful. You say above:

You came into the discussion and said people might want to read about a band and when I informed you the discussion was not about a band you made it sound as though the article should stay because someone might want to read interviews and reviews of a band.

I've never said anything of the sort. Nor did I ignore guidelines. I applied what I consider to be the spirit of them. The editor who removed the PROD has nothing to do with me, and the article does not draw any conclusions that violate WP:SYNTH, which applies to articles, not to debates. Editors can make any discussion point they want in an AfD; other editors can respond, and the closing admin can evaluate the overall merit. I'm certainly not basing anything on Ebay results. In fact, I removed that from the article, when I revised it. As to "Will something be useful content for them or not?", I think I am in a very good position to answer that, as I had never heard of this label before the AfD, and I now feel I have gained some very interesting knowledge and an insight into this small corner of the world. It is not something I would wish to rob others of. You cannot divorce the label's bands from the label, as the label exists primarily in terms of its bands. What the article can do is to collect disparate information into one place that relates to the label, and place the emphasis on that aspect of things. This is exactly what the article does do. Ty 06:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you are justing getting deeper into it - point/counterpoint and such. I had made a post about how minor the mentions were in an interview about a band - and seriously - your exact words were "Some people will want to find this information and we should provide it." What information? Considering my post had to do with articles on a band your comment that referred to those band articles was read to mean just what I said - "You came into the discussion and said people might want to read about a band..." Maybe that was not your intent but you did not present it clear. I never said you were the editor who removed the prod but you said that WP:SYNTH was "irrelevant" to this AfD. I explained why it wasn't. Also I have already said that an article about an artist, or a record review, would more than likely mention the label. In that regard "You cannot divorce the label's bands from the label, as the label exists primarily in terms of its bands" is some what true. But if a label rep said in an interview "This bands new album proves this is the best band ever!" it should not be taken as a good source any more than an artist saying "This album is on the best label ever!" In regards to either an interview or a review, trivial is trivial and saying "The Ty Album was released by Soundvision records" followed by a 30 page discussion of "Ty" and his songwriting would not make "Soundvision records" automatically notable. Nor would it provide the needed information per WP:CORP guidelines.
You are simply tossing out the guidelines, and you have a right to do that. I would rather try to make an active attempt to inform readers rather than just let any article stay no matter how poorly sourced. However I have voiced "keep" for articles that I do not personally find informative, but they meet one of the guidlines I go with that. I have voiced a "Delete" on articles I think should stay because "I have heard of the subject" but do not meet the guidlines overall. In this case, as you said you have learned about this business can help me out - how many units did the label move? What was the best seller? What is the present status? Are they going to re-release anything or put out CD's? Did the decline of Vinyl have to do with the label seemingly vanishing? What was the response to their releases at college radio? How much tour support did the label offer its bands? What kind of media relationship did the label have? How hard was it to get product into stores? Did any of the major distros pick up the product or did they only go through smaller subs? Was it hard to get into the bigger chains? Did any zines or glossys ever put out any flexis? What was the biggest budge the label ever gave to a band? What was the smallest? Did they have overseas distro? What was the reason if so? As a CEO how hard was it to be a woman in the business at the time? Did she find it hard to be taken seriously as a female label owner? What was the strangest submission the label ever got?
I do have tons more questions because this sort of thing interests me. And I have seriously tried to seek out relevant information that would add depth to the article. You are saying you found this information and "have gained some very interesting knowledge and an insight into this small corner of the world". So please share it and put it into the article along with the sources and I will gladly withdraw the Nom. Thanks! Soundvisions1 (talk)

Nope. The whole thing about the band is your interpretation of my comment. You might have been talking about the band, but I was talking about the material that related to the label. The only thing that matters about WP:SYNTH is whether the article violates it, which it doesn't. Mangum says rather more potent things about the label than "It's the best label ever". His words give an insight into the modus operandi of the label, which has the initiative to make original judgement in picking up a seeming no-hoper - and getting it right. That brings the article to life. There is not extensive discussion of the bands, only the minimum relevant to the subject of the label to give some context. I am not tossing out the guidelines. I consider they have been met. I think that this article will be an asset to wikipedia and someone searching for the label should be able to find it here. I have, as it happens, never heard of the subject before, nor do I have any particular interest in it! My knowledge and insight are what is in the article. That has been interesting enough for me. To find the answers to your greater curiosity, I suggest you contact Nancy Ostrander. There is an email address on her blogger profile. Maybe she could put this information online in a way it could be used as a reference. Ty 09:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Heart templates

Unless you have an objection, I intend to remove the 2 remaining templates from the Heart (band) page; they don't seem to be serving any purpose. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me take another look, Per 3o I am going to rewrite the lead in section or add a third "alternative history" subheader, not sure which will work better yet.Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

Wikipedia is entitled to make fair use of logos such as Image:Noir Pictures Logo.jpg under the concept of fair use without the permission (or even in the face of a claim to refuse permission). The situation is the same as with Image:Shell_logo.svg, for example. {{Logo fur}} explains why. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This may be true for some images however in the case of a user created image that was uploaded after May 2005 and claims it can only be used on Wikipedia or that other uses require permission it is to "deleted on sight". This is what CSD I3 is for. Adding "fair use" will not change how it was uploaded by it's creator.
  1. "Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted - May 19, 2005" :"As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight."
  2. "Clearing up Wikimedia's media licensing policies - February 8, 2007" :"It is for these reasons, which we have long supported, that all media on Wikimedia sites which are used under terms that specify non-commercial use only, no-derivatives only, or permission for Wikimedia only, need to be be phased out and replaced with media that does not have these restrictions."
The image in question was uploaded on April 30, 2008. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Frances pinter.jpg

Hello. You added {{di-no permission}} to Image:Frances pinter.jpg, but the uploader, Johnbuckman, says that he uploaded it in the presence of the copyright holder who licensed it GFDL/cc-by-3.0. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, so I apologize if it seems that I am, but why don't you accept that Mr. Buckman has received the permission he claims? I understand being a bit more skeptical of some unknown user, but I doubt Mr. Buckman, an open-source and free-content kind of guy, would be dishonest about this. Please reconsider your request for more proof. Thank you, WODUP 05:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion now at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 14 if you'd like to participate. WODUP 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yancarlos

This is Yancarlos Ortiz, a Minnesota Twins farmhand. I wrote a Wikipedia entry about him that ended up being deleted as I was unaware of the guidelines for minor league ballplayers. This picture isn't currently in use, so I really don't care if it is deleted.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Opinion request

Replied at User_talk:Enric_Naval#Opinion_request --Enric Naval (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:20080615-Jade.jpg & Image:20080615-Jade 2.jpg

Hello. I would like to inform that I am the webmaster of source website Jade Online. The photographer Dick Ho and Sunny are the members who are participating in Jade Online for taking photos of Jade Kwan. Jade Online reserves all the rights of their photos. Vincentkhm (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the image discussions, the images and your user talk page for more information. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The photographers are the photography-participators working for Jade Online. Jade Online and I as the main author hold all the rights of their participated photos that they made. Vincentkhm (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Telling me will not fix the issue. I posted details on how to do that on the images on on your user talk page. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have told that I am the copyright owner of the images, so do I need to verify every of my own publications in order to be used in Wikipedia? Vincentkhm (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Per the {{di-no permission}} notice:
  • You may have the images creator send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and their intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
  • If the creator of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
Once that information has been received there will be an OTRS ticket number assigned to the image. Then everything will be fine. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:540-02-04suicide07.jpg

Go ahead. No prob. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is on Wikimedia Commons so it does not need to be here as well. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:AATT-HILL-JONES-BURROWS.jpg

Hello Soundvision, thank you for your hint. It's okay, this photo can be deleted, because its quality is not so good. With kind regards,--Lampford (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have re-tagged {{db-g7}}. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Fair use rationale for Image:Arshad Mehmood.jpg

I went to the bot's page and I went to a help page and posted the following message, I haven't got a reply, the image is not replaceable and I provided this rationale on the image as well but perhaps I didn't use the right template (or didn't use this template the right way), can you tell me what constitutes as "rationale provided"? I thought I already provided that. User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 04:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure how to put more information than is already there, the image is not replaceable and I couldn't find the appropriate way to add the pic (wikipedia keeps evolving and I came back after a long wiki break). User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 05:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read (or re-read) the Non-free use rationale guideline as it lays out what is needed. I see you tried to create the templates {{Irreplaceable fair use}} and {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} however, as those do not exist, all you did was remove all of the valid templates asking for the fair use rationale while not providing any of it. If the image meets the Non-free content policy than the template {{Non-free use rationale}} may be filled out and used, along with one of the tags found at Non-free content. Currently none of the information that STBotI asked for has yet been provided and, based on the date the image was tagged, the image is set to be removed after today. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

IMDB

diff It actually sounds like we are of like minds in this discussion. We both seem to be in agreement that IMDB might best be used simply to verify lesser cast and crew that cannot be verified elsewhere. How did we ever get sidetracked about IMDB creating notability? We both agree it ain't so, and that IMDB can only support a claim have been in film XYZ in some capacity. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There was not a sidetrack, just trying to define, which still has not been done. The best way to define it is not to simply say it can be used to verify a basic fact because, for a lesser known subject of an article, that verification may also imply notability. Two fairly recent AfD's came to mind, one was for a musician/actor who, under the "actor" portion claimed to have been in a few films. They cited the imdb. I went and looked the subject up and found "credits" along the lines of "Man on street". Another editor also went to the imdb to verify and made a comment the subject had only one mention in the imdb and it was an "unnamed trivial part". The result of the AfD was "delete". Another AfD was about a musician who was a member of a band that had had a song in a film. The subject had also co-written the song. It was one of the main statements used in the article to claim notability. Another editor had removed the citation to the imdb and the subject kept asking "How do I cite the song was really in the film?" COI issues aside, other editors kept saying to provide a link to some sort of official website or other source that speaks about the soundtrack that would not only show the song, but the subject as being part of that song. In this case it was being asked the source be more than just a verification, some form of "significant coverage" that covered the subject in detail, and with no original research needed to extract the information was being asked for. It was a smaller film, no soundtrack was released, the was no "official" site and outside of the actual film or the imdb there seemed to be no other sources. At the AfD the result of this article was "delete". In both of these cases had the imdb backed up the comments as written in the articles there would have been a chance the articles would have established enough notability to squeak by. I think people are overlooking that and want to simply use a broad stroke, and a blanket statement, that "imdb is reliable and therefore can be used as a source" rather than define it. I would agree that, for a "blockbuster" or a studio film, there should be no reason why other sources can not be found, and used. For smaller indy films, short films, direct to video DIY films it is another story but to what degree should we allow use of the imdb? The topic is on the imdb but the form of blanket statement being used here is used for items such as a press release or other self published sources except the word "not" is used. (is not reliable and therefore can not be used as a source) As it would relate to the imdb a press release could exist that says "The film was released in 2007 and became a runway success due to its' urban soundtrack featuring the raw hip hop of Michael Q Schmidt." Now if an editor wanted to create an article on "Michael Q Schmidt" they would not be allowed to use that press release as a source to establish notability, but, despite most guidelines saying to not use them, they may be able to use it to establish some facts. For example they could establish that in 2007 Michael Q Schmidt was on a soundtrack to a film. But that is all. The imdb could be used for the exact same thing - to verify that the film came out in 2007 and Michael Q Schmidt was on the soundtrack. But neither one of those sources really does much, and they both do the same thing except one is not a press release and one is yet both may be self published. Follow me? While is would be frowned upon if the studio or artist created their own article here it is not frowned up at the imdb. Sometimes they go hand in hand for lesser known films, artists, musicians, actors and so on. And it is not only the imdb, as I say, it would be any user created/user sustained source where a high percentage of material comes from the public by submissions. The imdb is not the sole case, it just one of the cases being discussed currently. I think a lot of re-defining needs to be done across the board and it does come down to splitting hairs at some points. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
If the verification includes notability, that is a side issue up to the author and reader. If an article claims an actor was in a few films and cites IMDB, that does not confer on infer a notability. Though IMDB has confirmed the actor was background, notability would have to come from some other portion of the article. If that was the sole assertion of notability.... that the actor was in a film... I'd have to say congratulations, but what was so special about being a man-on-the-street background in that particular film? I myself have beem in a few television and film projects, but I shy away from those that relegate me to some unforgettable, trivial and near-invisibale background role. Even if my role is only listed in a descriptive format, as in "Soda Pop Drunk", or "Naked Biker", you can rest assured that, at least where I was concerned, there was something very special that made my part stand out and be memorable... and folks watching my films will say, "Oh, I remember that scene and that character"... as I do not wish to be trivial or forgettable... but that's me. I like to shine and get attention in even my smallest roles, so I choose them carefully. To call something "trivial" without examining it is a dismissive pitfall to which many editors fall prey. From your example, it does indeed sadly sound like there was no notability. Had the article simply stated, "Joe Smith was in film XYZ, that would have been verified. At an AfD I would have then asked, "what was the notability of standing in that crowd? Show me the notability and I'll vote keep." IMDB will confirm that fact of participation in lesser roles, but notability must be found through some other collection of facts and sources. Now if the assertion of notability is that Joe Smith has been a background actor in over 1000 films, that interesting little fact could be confirmed by IMDB and might itself be a minor notability. But just once or twice as a "man on the stretet?". Nah. So yes.... IMDB should be considered suitable for verifying basic non-contentious facts, and might confirm a notability... but it does not in and of itself confer notability. Without knowing all the details of your second example, I would judge that the editor who removed the verification of the song being in the film was incorrect to do so, as IMDB had vetted the information before publishing it. Whether the information came from a cast, crew, production, a fan, or therir own data collection editors does not matter, as the information had to have been accompanied by evidences that IMDB database editors were be able to vet, else it would never had been published. Whether the song being in the film was notable or not is a different argument and should have been hashed out at AfD... but the removal of the cite was improper. Sadly, IMDB has an underservedly bad reputation, as only vetted informations are published no matter who submits. That puts the onus of relaibility back on IMDB and not on the submitter, and IMDB takes that responsibility pretty seriously. You could submit that you were the actor who played the role of Luke Skywalker. You could submit it a dozen times or have it submited by a dozen friends. But if it cannot be proven to their editors, it would never be published. So.... that musician's song was in that film. No doubt about it. Removal of that uncontentious veruifying cite was incorrect. But as an assertion of notability, having a song in a film is not the grail. It would have been important to show that the musician was indeed a member of that band, that the band itself had some notability, and that one of the songs he co-wrote was in a film as PART of that overall notability. Unless notability is blatantly spread across headlines of the morning papers, it is important to build the structure of notability very carefully, making certain the foundation is strong. The less "obvious" a notability might be, the more important it is to construct multiple evidences well from multiple sources. It is accepted that for lesser films, smaller participations might be difficult or impossible to document elsewhere, so IMDB can be used to verify. And, sad as it is to say, it sounds like the film itself may simply have been non-notable, as being created and released does not a notability make. IMDB does not automatically give a notability. That was apparently the flaw in your two examples. They were depending on IMDB to confer notability rather than simply support facts that were established elsewhere. The way I see it, IMDB is itself a glorified "list". Vetted, confirmed, updated, corrected... but still just a list. And for proving notability, WP:RS asks that sources be more than just a list. How much more is a different discussion, but more than a simple mention. For your musician's smaller film, I would scold their production and distribution for mot getting it better reviews and writeups. The failing is their's and not the musician's. Did the film have its own article? Did the band? Did the co-written song? All these threads in the fabric of notability should have been woven together. Here's my opinion: IMDB is reliable enough to be used as a source to verify a fact, HOWEVER... for establishing notability, there must be more than one or two mentions in different sources and those sources must also be something more than trivial (a sentence or two might suffice, as the coverage need not be exclusive). IMDB can certainly be used to support a structure building an assertion of notability, but does not create or confer that notability. IMDB can be considered a repository of vetted information, no matter who submitted it to them or whatever their reasons for doing so might be. That Joe Smith made a film, got it to a few festivals, and submitted it to IMDB and was accepted, is absolutely no different that Warner Brothers marketing department submitting informations about their latest films. IMDB looks at all submissions with a jaundiced eye, determines the accuracy of the informations based upon the accompanying evidences, and publishes (or not) accordingly. It absolutely matters not one iota who submits the information. Simple point being that IMDB may be a source to confirm a fact and it is that fact that does or does not assert or create a notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

← Ironic that I stumbled on this: Andy Lee (comedian). No citation at all. Only one "reference", a link to an official website. And two external links - a band website and the imdb. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes... a long-winded agreement (chuckle). But I felt compelled to be thorough in considering to what I was responding. I just tagged the Andy article for additional sources, as his own website is not suitable as a reliable source for notability... okay for non-contentious facts, but not to confirm any asserted notability. The external links seem fine. His article needs much work else it be discovered by a deletist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

www.tom.com - No idea

Hi. I have no idea what TOM.COM is, unfortunately; it's written in Chinese. You need to find someone who can read traditional Chinese to find an answer for your question. Sorry. --Veratien (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Having suggested that the user seek out a Japanese speaking editor to help with this, I just have to note that you've already been incredibly helpful. :D Feedback from somebody who could recognize the language is a good step. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Just to update, I've asked at User talk:Aervanath. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just stumbled on to your conversation and tom.com should be something like the Chinese equivalent of Yahoo (with all the gossip on it). I do speak Chinese and I can read a good portion of it, so yeah, just letting you know. 75.79.12.22 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Images issue

Hi, sorry for the late reply. I had enough of (c) issues for a few days after clearing some backlog at wp:pui. I deleted the images and left a message for the uploader. With the uncropped version you found, it does not look good. I also dealt with the OTRS e-mail he send. Garion96 (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soundvisions1/Talk/Archive/Archive2&oldid=1086411972"