Talk:Solu Music

I believe if you have cleaned up the article, you can delete the notice. By the way, you should also un-bold all the "Solu Music" references other than the first. But then you can go ahead and remove the notice, citing clean-up in the edit summary box (below the edit page). Thanks! Rockstar915 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the info! kjs1982 21:40, 19 February 2007

Don't remove other people's talk page messages. You also need to cite those sources in the article. Simply throwing loads of external links at it isn't enough. Those two Ministry of Sound links are fairly short and trivial.--Drat (Talk) 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and clean it up in the next few days. The group does indeed conform to WP:Notability (music), so it'll just take me a bit to clean it up. I'll go ahead and put it high on my to-do list. I think kjs1982 contributed greatly and provided the basis for a great Wikipedia-friendly article. Just my 2 cents. Rockstar915 06:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding a cleanup tag for my reference. Thanks, Rockstar915 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Drat - I thought someone said to me that after I had added notable references I could delete tags and messages - sorry. I think calling those links "trivial" is just mega-picky. Ministry of Sound is one of the biggest music franchises on the planet, if not *the* biggest, so the fact that Solu have been mentioned at all is incredibly notable - especially as Ministry of Sound is British and Solu are from the USA. Add that to the fact there are other links that are perfectly respectable and I think the notability is unarguably confirmed. I still don't understand how there are articles out there with 5 or 6 lines of text and no links that have been on Wiki for years, but people continue to argue needlessly about clearly notable entities. Rockstar - thanks for the compliment and thanks in advance for your help. kjs1982 02:30, 21 February 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Solumusic1.gif
Image:Solumusic1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Major Edit
I have removed all the unverified data, basically 90% of their history. Most of the information was written like an advertisement and had several peacock words. Quite frankly they are not popular enough to need that much information anyway. I have provided their complete discography. I have also removed the links to 2 of their interviews as the links were dead.--Freikorp (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)