Kidcory

Spider Stacy

If you look back at this version of the article, I'll go over what the problems are with the sourcing:

• Numbers 1, 3, 5 and 6 are his profile on the webpage of the band itself, which is a primary source that cannot confer notability. And numbers 2 and 4, to Magnet, are to an interview with him, written in "Magazine: Question? Stacy: Answer." format. Those kinds of sources can be acceptable for some confirmation of facts if there are enough other reliable, independent sources in the article to cover off his notability as a standalone topic, but in and of themselves they cannot contribute to putting him over the notability bar. It's possible for what people say about themselves, in their own profiles on their own websites or in interviews, to be unduly self-promoting and/or inaccurate — think, for example, of the stereotypical vain middle-aged actress who claims to be 10 to 15 years younger than she really is, or the pompous blogger who wants a Wikipedia article so badly that he'll claim on his own blog to have been president of the independent micronation of Blogistanivania, and then try to use his own self-invented claim as support for a Wikipedia article on the basis that he was a national head of state even though not a single reliable source ever covered him in that capacity. So we have to use content where a person is talking about themselves, rather than somebody else with fact-checking and verification capabilities writing about them, with extreme caution — sources of that type cannot, in and of themselves, make a person notable enough to have their own standalone article, but can only be cited for supplementary confirmation of facts after enough other sources have already been added to the article to cover off the notability issue.
• Numbers 7, 8 and 9 are to other Wikipedia articles — but under WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself. For the same reason, source #10 (LiquiSearch) is also buried, because it also says that its source for its content was our article rather than independent media coverage — so that's still not a valid reference under WP:CIRCULAR. The problem is that because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, it is entirely possible for our content to be wrong if it isn't properly supported by an independent source (i.e. media coverage) which verifies that the information is accurate.
• Number 11 is his profile on IMDb — which we're allowed to list in the body of the article as an external link, but because it's a user-generated site that can contain uncaught errors, we cannot use it as a footnoted reference for our content.
• Number 12 was not published in music media, but only on a writer's own personal website — so it's an unreliable self-published source.
• Number 13 is a discussion forum, which is user-generated and therefore unreliable.

Which means that out of all the sources in the article, #14 (The Times-Picayune) is the only one that counts for anything toward establishing that he qualifies for an independent BLP of his own, rather than just a redirect to the Pogues — but one source isn't enough to get him over WP:NMUSIC by itself. It's not that he can never have his own article, I assure you, and it's not that I'm not a Pogues fan myself — but a standalone article about him would have to be sourced a lot better than that.

As for the other band members, I can only evaluate content as I see it. I'll take a look now to see which, if any, of the other band members are really sourced as badly as you claim, and will deal with them as needed — but Spider Stacy was the only article of the bunch that I physically saw in the process of the particular maintenance job I was working on yesterday.

Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through the band members and redirected the two who were relying entirely on the band's own website for "sourcing". They can also both absolutely be recreated again if stronger sourcing can be brought in to salvage them. There were also a couple of others which weren't resting solely on that one primary source alone, but were still far from being well-sourced — but I've tagged those for reference improvement instead of redirecting the way I did for the ones who were relying exclusively on the band's website. Bearcat (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Spider Stacy, 2011.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Spider Stacy, 2011.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In particular, the twitter post does not state the license under which the image was released. The best approach to making sure that this image is licensed properly is to follow the information given above, and have the subject send the statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. -- Whpq (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have asked the creator of the image to either upload it to the commons herself, or to fill out the appropriate release and email it to me so I can forward it to Wikipedia permissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidcory (talk • contribs)

Make sure there is an explicit statement of license in the email. Just saying it's okay for use on Wikipedia is not enough. I just want to emphasize this since that's what was posted in the original tweet you linked. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I sent her the sample permission letter to which you directed me above.

Deletion pending for File:Spider Stacy, 2011.jpg

Hello, Kidcory. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Spider Stacy, 2011.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

• If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

• If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)