User talk:TheJazzDalek/2010-02

AfD nomination of Facel Vega (band)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Facel Vega (band). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facel Vega (band). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Erwin85Bot, but I'm the one who nominated it. TheJazzDalek (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Head's up

Hello. I noticed that the user Ob4cl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked for numerous accounts, and disruptive editing. Several days after this block a new account 75.22.18.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is made - this person is editing the exact same pages, and making the exact same edits (most of them being entirely unnecessary) ... Just thought I would let you know.--Blastmaster11 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks for the head's up. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

... Me again

Although I recently contacted Ozler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in regards to their constant edits on album pages where they're putting Professional review ratings in bold letters, they still persist in doing so. Although this isn't quite vandalism, this is certainly unconstructive to these pages, thus, I was wondering if you could contact them (perhaps they will listen to you.)--Blastmaster11 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll look into it. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

deuce's page

Hey there, I am new to wikipedia but am quickly getting a hang of things. I noticed that not only are you a very active user but that your comments and edits are very professional, I want to thank you for this.

I have been taking a lot of time recently to ensure that the Deuce page has enough information and is kept up to date. As the producer / lead singer for Hollywood Undead and embarking on his own solo career (new interview / blog posted that confirms this) I do not believe this page should be deleted. As a fan of Hollywood Undead my self, myself and many of my other friends have been using this page as a reliable source to find out what tracks he has been producing and other artists he is working with.

I tried to "vote" to not get the page deleted but was hoping you could give me some advice to make this page more relevant and important so that fans can stay updated and get the information that is needed and wanted by them. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Whitewithsquares (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is notability. In the context of Wikipedia, saying something is or isn't notable isn't a judgement of its real life value—it's referring to whether or not the subject in question meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. In this specific case, the guidelines that Deuce needs to meet are listed at WP:MUSIC. It's a list of various criteria, and he really only needs to meet one of them to meet the notability standards. The difficulty here—and it's a fairly common one—is that while Hollywood Undead clearly meet those standards, the group's notability isn't automatically passed onto the individual members of the group (for example: while the group has won a gold record, Deuce only has a gold record within the context of the group, it's not for his own album). It's not unlikely that once his solo album is released that he'll get enough media coverage to pass notability but until then, keeping any information about him in the Hollywood Undead article seems like the best solution. I hope this helps and if you have any other questions please don't hesitate to ask. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh I see totally what you are saying, the main reason I believe that a page like this would need to stay is primarily due to the fact of him writing and producing the majority of swansongs AND embarking upon a solo-career AND producing other notable artists, brokencyde, Jeffree Star, etc. What would be the criteria for a producer / songwriter / lead singer to have his own page? Again my views are largely on the fact that this page actually gets used by many fans and such to get information on current works, released works (albeit some are not "officially released"), future works, and other noteworthy information. I am scouring the web for more information that I can use to update the page but some reason it does not let me. I know for a fact several of his songs were on iTunes for months and received many good reviews. Perhaps if I gathered more information and presented it to you in an official manner this would help to resolve the issue? Whitewithsquares (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't a different standard. If he wrote or produced a number one song for somebody else, that might help but otherwise, it's the same. iTunes reviews don't really count here, it would have to be in a professional publication. It's perfectly acceptable to have information about his solo career on the group's page. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bout the boldface

i think it is more interesting if we use this kind of writing, the reviews are more valuable like this, anyway if wiki doesn't allow to write it like this, i won't continue.

I'm waiting your point of view— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozler (talk • contribs) 12:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

While the boldface does make the rating stand out more (I'm not saying whether that's bad or good), the consensus for how to do it is to leave it plain, which is why every article you see has it plain, not bold. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Future Love

Don't you think the "cover version" clause of WP:NSONGS was designed to cover this case?—Kww(talk) 01:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah. Only one cover version ≠ notability. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)