User talk:Magicbane

Image Tagging Image:Katamari.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Katamari.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 09:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Eye Alaska
A tag has been placed on Eye Alaska requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ironholds 11:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi, I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It had previously been deleted by another admin in January for the same reason.

The fact that they are a signed group is not sufficient tin itself to fulfil the criteria and even if they are notable, there is nothing to show this. Being someone’s brother does not make you notable, nor does having a wikipedia red link. The references were the band’s website on their record company page, and their MySpace page; these don’t validate anything since they are not independent

There is nothing to stop you recreating the article, but it needs better evidence (chart success etc) from independent sources, jimfbleak (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any problem using the website for uncontroversial tour information, it's more an issue of showing why they are notable. Read this carefully. If they meet a criterion, you should be able to reference it (national tour - the website might do at pinch, but an independent source like a music website or mag would be better)


 * You can use reviews, as long as they are from dependable sources (ie the NY Times rather than the National Enquirer, but I would paraphrase and ref rather than just quoting, which looks like spam. Keep comments of this kind short too. If there are any negative/half-hearted comments, make sure you mention them too to give balance. I think that this article can survive, just needs better refs/avoidance of spam. jimfbleak (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)