Innocent Bystanders

edit

Have attempted to tidy up the article but you will need to provide some references to the material you have already provided. Dan arndt (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply


Fair use rationale for Image:DontGoLookingBackLPCoverSml.jpg

edit

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DontGoLookingBackLPCoverSml.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

One Out One Back

edit
 

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article One Out One Back, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Notability Criteria

edit

I thought you might end up facing this - for your information:

  • 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:
  1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries[2] except for the following:
      • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
      • Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
      • An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
  2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
  3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
  4. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.[3]
  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).
  6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
  7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
  8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award.
  9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
  10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)
  11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
  12. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

You may want to have a look at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Satisfying music notability guidelines as this gives a fair good outline as to what you need to do. The article on Innocent Bystanders could be justified as notable as Mark Lizotte is a notable performer and therefore satisfies criteria 6 - the article still needs more references. Dan arndt (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist. (See Wikipedia:Attribution#Self-published sources for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see -- someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, etc. does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.
  2. ^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
  3. ^ The application of this criterion is disputed; see discussion on talk page.