User talk:Webbelot

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Charhall1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Charhall1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PatDonahue.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PatDonahue.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited One Day Alive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 10 years. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of One Day Alive for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One Day Alive is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Day Alive until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I add my input to keep this page alive? I feel like I have met all things needed to keep this as a page. Webbelot (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing for the deletion of One Day Alive to be reviewed. The page was edited by an unknown person (I think from the band) and multi cites were taken out leaving only like 2-3. I will edit page to add more cites. I am proposing to reenlist page as they currently have a record contract with a subsidiary company or Warner Brother Music. They also have a record coming out being produced by the guitarist of Saving Abel.

I understand that the single being on the charts is not Billboard but I can edit and cite more on the page. Webbelot (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, being signed to a record label is not an instant notability guarantee for a band in and of itself. The WP:NMUSIC criterion that mentions record labels doesn't say "signed to a major record label", it says "has released two full albums on a major record label" — so while a band can get still an article with just one album if it passes other NMUSIC criteria such as Billboard hits or Grammy awards, there have to be two albums, not just one, before being on a major label counts for anything on its own. "Debut album forthcoming" is also not a notability criterion at all, which means it isn't grounds for a Wikipedia article either.
The sources for a Wikipedia article also have to be third-party coverage about the band in real media — you don't establish a band as notable by sourcing their album to its own Spotify stream or Bandcamp buy-it page, you establish a band as notable by sourcing their album to newspaper or magazine articles about the band and their album, such as music critics in real magazines reviewing it. Notability doesn't come from verifying that the topic exists, it comes from verifying that the topic has been analyzed and reported on by established media that is recognized as authoritative. But if I look back at the article's history, there's no point at which you ever added any reliable or WP:GNG-building sourcing to it — you used sources like YouTube copies of their music videos, directory entries, blogs that aren't GNG-worthy publications, their own website and social networking profiles, and WP:CIRCULAR citations to other Wikipedia articles, which aren't support for notability, and never cited any GNG-worthy reliable source coverage at all.
To be fair, an AFD discussion does not constitute a permanent ban on a subject ever being notable enough for inclusion, and an article can be recreated in the future if their notability claim and its sourceability improve over what they were at the time of the first discussion. But your way forward doesn't involve having the article immediately restored to mainspace in its existing state — if you want to try again, you need to do it through the WP:AFC process so that we can ensure that the notability claim and its sourcing pass our standards. But the article is not going to be restored in its existing state, because they will need to have to have both a stronger notability claim than the original article stated, and better sourcing for it than the original article used, before they become eligible to keep a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]