Talk:Valerie Day

BLP
If people disagree over whether this article fails WP:BLP, then they should discuss it here. Since there was no explanation why the pre-stubbed article violated this guideline, I have reverted it back. Stubbing it for this reason without an explanation (other than it needs sources) is at best unhelpful, & at worst disruptive. -- llywrch 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been covered many times before. Removing unsourced material on living persons is perfectly acceptable and, according to Jimbo, doesn't require discussion. Check WP:NOR and WP:V before you make threats. | TheBLPGuy 13:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious--where is the threat what llywrch said? I don't see it. Latr, Katr 14:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The link to WP:POINT. | TheBLPGuy 16:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think linking to policy is equivalent to a threat. Katr67 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is obvious to me what kind of account TheBLPGuy was, but I'm afraid he's right. Quality of quantity is our mission, and if there aren't any references provided in the next few days to support this article on its own, I'm going to leave a redirect to Nu Shooz in its place until we can.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP says:
 * Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
 * (I added the emphasis to the word contentious.) If there is a problem with a certain contentious fact, it needs to be removed with no discussion. Otherwise, BLP does not apply, and any editing should be conducted with reference to other policies and guidelines. -Pete (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect: YOU ARE WRONG. Contentious?  I contend that all of it fails our verifiability policies, which include WP:BLP and will be redirecting as proposed until this matter can be resolved.  Good day to you.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * BLP clearly says, Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims..  Corvus cornix  talk  16:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I disagree that you should blank a bio merely because it is unsourced. I don't think that's what BLP is about. Yes, contentious material should be removed and not reinserted but being unsourced doesn't automatically make the information contentious. Second, all of this material is clearly supported by the primary source of the subject's web site, so on that issue, it should stay. On the other hand, it's clearly a copyright violation of that page, so on that grounds, I'm going to blank it, pending a re-write. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Copyright violations should be deleted from the edit history, as described at Copyright violations. Relying solely on primary sources is also an ill-advised thing to do, for what I should hope are obvious reasons.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Primary sources aren't ideal, of course, but to source something like, "Valerie Day studied music and Portland State University" or "Valerie Day is a singer and percussionist," I think it's fine. Are you suggesting that it isn't?  And where does it say that the revisions should be deleted from the history?  I don't mind doing it, but I don't see it in the policy.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that a rhetorical question? :-)  Entertainers are infamous for stretching the truth about their personal details, this is why we place such a strong emphasis on reliable independent third party publications when dealing with biographical articles.  People lie about their birthdates all the time, where they went to school, et cetera.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good day to you too Coccyx! If it is a copyvio, then yes it should be removed from the edit history. But, I don't see the page it was copied from. Is it a sub-page of Valerie Day's web site? If so, which one? Are you sure it was all the text, or might it just have been a sentence or two? Also, I agree: primary sources are fine for relatively non-controversial claims.


 * It was pretty much a straight copy from here, with some minor changes (removing adjectives, changing first to last name, etc.) -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I suppose I could have found that for myself... -Pete (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, primary sources are not ideal, but they are explicity allowed by policy to fill out a biographical article. If there was a conflict in information with a third party reliable source, then of course, we'd go with that.  But in the absence of any reason to doubt a primary source, there's no reason to delete information based on it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources for expansion

 * (states membership in Nu Shooz, and that "I Can't Wait" went to #3 on Billboard, gold record, tour with Tina Turner, big hair)




 * "But lead singer Valerie Day 's lack of charisma and the band's general lack of depth, in spite of numerous tiresome instrumental demonstrations, suggested that Nushooz may turn out to be less lasting a phenomenon than once was predicted." "Tough but perky wholesome image." Good dancing, conga playing. Overused vocal hook. Day reluctant to step out as a star.


 * "a lot of stage business", but "the mechanical beat and one-dimensional quality of Nu Shooz' music. The group's songs were repetitious and lifeless, with little originality (it should be noted that ``I Can't Wait'' was a hit only after a Dutch disco deejay rerecorded it with clever special effects.)"


 * These are all articles about Nu Shooz. We have an article about the band already.  Does anyone object to a redirect?  Its the obvious choice here.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Object" is pretty strong language...all I'm trying to do is improve the article, I don't see what the hurry is. But if you feel the need, be bold. On the other hand, you could sit back for 20 minutes and see what happens. Your choice. -Pete (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Review of 2nd album (I Told U So.) "If Portland can be said to have its own R&B sound, the duo of John Smith and Valerie Day have rewritten the book." Songwriting credited almost entirely to band members, unusual for R&B. Linda Hornbuckle and Maceo Parker featured on several tracks.


 * It seems to me Valerie Day is likely to be notable on her own. Nu Shooz was brief and a long time ago. Give Pete a chance to add some content to the article before anyone goes redirecting it. I would tend to agree that the uncontentious info sourced from the artist's website doesn't really violate BLP, however, that's a moot point since I didn't realize it was a copyvio. Though there's nothing wrong with using info from her site as a base for the article along with several non-trivial independent reliable sources per WP:BAND. Katr67 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a good general writeup of Day's career:


 * Three feature articles in the Tribune