Matt Lee (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)( DRV) ( AfD 2nd nomination)

Asking for review at request of article's creator. It is not clear that there was consensus to delete and in any event since the Afd nomination additional references supporting notability have been added. –  ukexpat ( talk) 19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment This article is mentioned at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Guitaro99. And you might want to take a look at Speedy Deletes. -- Suntag ☼ 19:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note - You can see hard copy of Mr.Lee's writing and publishing credit in the 2nd photo in the site. It is hard copy, but the actual lp's liner notes from The Divine Horsemen record Devil's River. You can IMDB the movie bikini Island and see that his song Shot Down is in the movie. It is listed in the movie's end credits too.D.Schneider( 69.231.39.97 ( talk) 19:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)) reply

• Endorse Deletion The first AFD lead to a checkuser case here which lead to a DRV here. The new AFD brings new IPs and a new user and now another checkuser here. All the deletes were from experienced editors. The three keeps were from WP:SPAs. Gtstricky ^{Talk or C} 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and salt - The closer interpreted AfD 2nd correctly. Also, keeping this topic unsalted is causing more work for others (such as check user) beyond the article. Salting the topic may help less the work load on Wikipedians. -- Suntag ☼ 19:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• There also is an open Possibly unfree images discussion from one of the images in the article. -- Suntag ☼ 19:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep and Un-Delete I wrote this article and worked very hard at it. I will take any help offered and the notability factor is there, regardless of what these other notes have to bring. They are in touch with each other, obviously, or the response would'nt have been so much so fast. Tricky has been on this like white on rice and apparently brought in a friend,suntag, whom has never been in on this article or posted a comment ever, to show expert critique and knowledegeable opinion based on tricky's request. Tricky at one point even endorsed this for re-nomination for afd consensus # 2. He has been going out of his way to delete this for some unknown reason and contacted Coren to find out why this article ,which was just nominated for deletion , had'nt been removed yet. :) . I feel this has been under unfair attack because the refs of notability have been included. I believe that this page should have more discussion. There were only two critics of this page and there were many more that supported a review when it was saved from deletion the first time. Mr. Lee has provided me hard copy of his credits which I posted to this site and it seems it was'nt looked at. There are refs of notability here and if we need more we'll get them. I just need time. The lyric/writing credit sheet has Mr. Lee's info on it and is here on this site in hardcopy. I've also put in a request at coren's site. These editors seem to be in a huge rush to delete this article. Sorry if they don't like punk rock or Mr. Lee, b ut I want a review of this, as the article was originally ok'd and then appealed by nard who so carefully watched this site as did tricky. They both pushed with all their collective might to delete this and will not stop until it's gone. I feel there's gross prejudice shown by them, because they did'nt even offer to help with the article, they just have been trashing it. look at the prior comments on this article before this last afd was proposed and see that there was support from others re: this article. If you look at the tag on the Matt Lee(musician) talk page, you will see that this page was accepted. It was then contested, but since then more and more notability refs have been added. Mr.Lee also has a new record signed to HepCat Records,subsidy of Interscope Records(same label as Britney Spears, Led Zeppelin's new record,The StrayCat's new record,and the list goes on....)coming out in nov/dec time. This is a major release. He also has records out for sale to this day with The Divine Horsemen at Atavistic records and at rollingstone.com . You can go to their record store and pull up The Divine Horsemen there. You'll be re-directed to The Flesh Eaters (band) site there. It's a combinant site for The Flesh Eaters (band)/ The Divine Horsemen space there. D.Schneider( 69.231.39.97 ( talk) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)) reply
• Note Who is suntag? This person is attacking like they've been on this case and suntag has never ever been invloved before. This is a person that is friends with tricky sockpuppeting here to delete this article.suntag never had anything to do with this and is all of a sudden so passionate about finalizing things.I am allowed a time to appeal this deletion just the same way that nard appealed this article when it was kept . There needs to be more experienced editors on this and not the same two (tricky and nard ) and their friends. This article is not getting a fair shake at all. There is evidence of notability and I want the highest admin to look over the two afd's that have transpired and look at the notes. That will show these two editors, if they are editors, have a vendetta and that the article deserves to be kept like it was before these two appealed the keep. Thank you.

D.Schneider( 69.231.39.97 ( talk) 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC))( 69.231.39.97 ( talk) 20:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)) reply

• Note so far suntag has padded up this consensus with three entries. Does'nt suntag have any other articles to work on? So far tricky and suntag are the only ones commenting.This is all related to tricky somehow. I know tricky has this on his watch list too. Why are these two pushing SO hard? We need other commentary from non-related senior staff. D.Schneider( 69.231.39.97 ( talk) 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)) reply

Understanding your passion for this article I will not respond to your accusations. I will let my edit history speak for itself. Gtstricky ^{Talk or C} 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I would like to see the cross talk between some of these contributing "editors" on this site including nard , tricky, and suntag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.39.97 ( talk) 21:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse consensus to delete by established editors. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• see??? THOR even agrees.

• I thought that notability would be established by showing mr.Lee's hard copy of his writing credits here.

with a little time and guidance I will improve the article to help it along. Just let me know what else I can do. I'd like to hear from someone with experience that can help and not destroy. Not one of these comments shows any reason why this article should be deleted. D.Schneider( 69.231.39.97 ( talk) 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)) reply

Also , tricky's immediate response shows me he's on a mission to delete this article. I don't find any creedence to the arguments here so far because no resasons for deletion have been listed. There's only "delete", "endorse delete" and obviously no review here. Edit background or no edit background, tricky shows an overly concerted effort to destroy an article with viability and notability. It seems to me that tricky may have an ego issue here. Once he's decided on deleting, he's set to the ends of the earth to follow through. That's not editing, that's search and destroy. I'd like a fair hearing and not a kangaroo court. Kangaroo courts are not Wiki like behaviour. Thank you. D. Schneider( 69.231.39.97 ( talk) 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)) reply

• I made heavy re-edits and have reliable sources listed in the article about him. Please. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to submit them and I will respond. Thank you.  :) ( Joeyboyee ( talk) 11:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)) reply
• Hopefully the re-formatting and additional refs will help out here. Thank you.  :) ( Joeyboyee ( talk) 11:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)) reply
• Keep. This is a viable and credible artist. Thanks.( Joeyboyee ( talk) 12:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)) reply

Got deleted for several reasons

I need a review of my article before I upload it again. Thomasrk ( talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: Fixed above. Also seems to be the wrong forum. I'm glad to help, but you don't need DRV for this. Come talk to me at my talk page and I'll take a look. lifebaka ++ 15:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Nevermind, all deleted versions appear to be copyvios. Endorse and do not restore. Thomasrk, I suggest you review our notability inclusion criteria for companies and make sure that TARGIT meets it before reposting an article about it, and when you do, write the article from scratch. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, do not userfy per the above. Thomas, you'll probably also need to look through our neutrality and copyright policies, as these are all blatant advertising and obviously copied from somewhere. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 16:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

File:National Nine News Darwin opener.png ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| IfD | article)

Image deleted against the consensus which was keep, the image did not fail NFCC#8 as the image was used to show the news opener which is only unique on NTD and no other channel owned by the Nine Network Bidgee ( talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I reviewed this image before it was nom'd to IFD and think it is the best minimal FU we can have, while still providing context on the topic. Further, a vote of 3 Keep, 1 Delete at IFD is at best No Consensus and probably a Keep close. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Mbisanz. 3 keeps vs. 1 delete, with rational arguments pro and con, does not easily spell delete. John Z ( talk) 05:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment close seems perfectly reasonable. Three respondants (other than nom) (Noting ones inappropriate attempt to attack the nominators motive, rather than their argument) all seemed to concentrate on the nom's suggestion of "purely decorative" than NFCC#8 itself, which is "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." - there is a big gap between something being purely decorative and "significantly increase..." in this instance maybe the respondants are correct that it isn't purely decorative, but they don't address the "significantly increase..." part of the actual criteria. The article says "The opener used for National Nine News Darwin uses an aerial shot of Darwin with the National Nine News logo and date." not sure how the image can Significantly increase undestanding beyond that. So in the strength of arguments stakes the Nom cited NFCC#8, the respondants failed to show any significance hence didn't overcome NFCC#8.-- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, in the absence of a bright-line rule consensus is the only thing that we have to decide these issues. Stifle ( talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Plus the closing statement wasn't clear as to whether it was addressing the consensus or a personal position. -- Suntag ☼ 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• If the image is restored, and replaced in the article NTD, will it then be accompanied by critical commentary and discussion as in the non-free content acceptable use guidelines? Reviewing wherein this this image was removed [1], there isn't any currently. In fact, there's appears to be a description of the removed image already? WP:NFCC#1?

  Are these pertinent warrants to consider before possibly overturning only to nominate for deletion again? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • It is a logo, to quote from our logo guidelines, Many images of logos are used on Wikipedia and long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes., this image will go in the NTD#News to provide the reader understanding about the local version of the national news program produced specifically at this stuido. MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • My mistake, I inferred from reading the IfD nomination and the discussions there that this had been a television screenshot. So the 0.6KB section needs another logo in this article for identification and to significantly increase readers' understanding?

      In IfD discussions, arguments supported by policies and guidelines determine retention or deletion, not !votes based on WP:IT'SIMPORTANT, WP:IS NOT!, or WP:THISEDITORDOESN'TCOUNT. While the nomination was on WP:NFCC#8 (and I'll argue, not contested), but those involved here in discussion should make sure this meets the acceptable use guidelines and all of the non-free criteria or it will just be nominated for deletion again under those tenants.

      I personally cannot judge on the appropriateness of this closure because I cannot see the image and corroborate the argument for deletion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

      • It appears to be a screen shot of the logo, I know the prior image was a screen shot of the logo that also included the anchor, and I advised against that image, since we don't need a person's image in it to gain context. Just clarifying the exact nature. MBisanz ^talk 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Well, the article already has a logo image Image:Channelnine.svg, so why does it need two? That was not answered at the IfD. Also, a screen shot of a logo that also included the news anchor is a screen shot, not a logo. Television screen shots need only be accompanied by sourced "discussion of the ... television (show? screenshot?)" (yes, it is vague) to meet NFC Images No. 5. What sourced discussion of the television supported use of the image? That was not answered at the IfD. A sourced discussion on the overall visual look and feel of this particular news show would seem to be enought to keep the image. But if no source mentions the overall visual look and feel of the local news show, then why should Wikipedia attempt this via a screen shot? -- Suntag ☼ 16:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (from closing admin) The article is about television station NTD, so the NTD station logo in the infobox is acceptable, but the subtopic of the news program does not warrant the use of another copyrighted image. The text of the section describes the opening of the news program enough to put it in context. A logo over a generic aerial shot with no supported critical commentary on the image falls well below the bar set at WP:IFD and WP:DRV for meeting WP:NFCC#8. It is generally supported that local consensus does not win over policy. Given theses factors the proper course of action was to delete the image. - Nv8200p talk 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion (from original nominator). It isn't a logo, and it isn't needed to "identify" the show (the name alone does that alright). No other substantial arguments were brought forward in the IfD for keeping it, so the deletion call was correct. Keep votes didn't rise above mere assertions of "meets the criteria", without specifying how it did so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I'm pretty sure that we judge consensus against policy not headcount and I'm also not seeing any clear explanation how this logo fulfils anything other then a decorative purpose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As I have said the image/screenshot is unique to NTD which also identifies NTD's National Nine News and no other TV station owned by the Nine Network which also ATM are rumors in the media that another network will take it over and axe the news [2]. All I'm seeing is editors over using a policy with others backing up "freinds" when the image does infact meet the policy. Bidgee ( talk) 09:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • What an staggering assumption of bad faith on your part. Instead of criticising the views of other users you would be better placed to actually explain clearly what the image adds that cannot be explained in text. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Not bad faith at all since it's fair to say. I have explained (I've even had MBisanz look at the image and put it this way we are not "friends" just someone who I get to look at something for an option) what the image has only to have others ignore what I've said or just try and change the subject. Bidgee ( talk) 10:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. A couple of people is not "consensus", consensus is reflected by policy. In this case policy says we don't have screenshots without a compelling reason. The function of identifying is fulfilled by the ident / logo in the infobox, this was just a random screengrab with no real evidence of critical commentary (do we have sources discussing the prominent use of the date, or the background image? Does the image change?) Guy ( Help!) 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's not a random screen "grab" and it is critical to the article (ATM I don't have time to explain since I have to go to work). Bidgee ( talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Critical to the article meaning that the 564 bytes of accompanying text are incomprehensible or incomplete without this copyrighted image? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn possibly relist. This isn't a case of consensus vs. policy. Instead, this is about if there is consensus that this is or isn't passing said policy. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse. I think the close was correct as a matter of policy and that that fact is established by the IfD even though more users argued keep. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply