This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. Joyous 17:51, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nico Demonte

[edit] =

December 19, 2005

Sender Information: Ms. Anna Astley POB 358 Bloomgindale, IL 60108

Recipient Information: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 200 2nd Ave. South #358 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313 USA

Sent via: Via Electronic Delivery Re: Demand to Cease and Desist and Retract Libel

December 19, 2005

Dear Wikimedia Foundation Inc:

This agency represents Nico Demonte and we have been asked to write this letter to you. Many of your statements about Nico Demonte in your web and e-mail postings are untrue and defamatory. You made them maliciously to injure Nico Demonte in his trade, office and profession. As such, they are defamatory per se. Under O.C.G.A. 51-5-11, this letter constitutes a demand for immediate retraction in writing of these false and libelous statements. In accordance with O.C.G.A 51-5-11(b)(1)(C), Nico Demonte demands that your retraction and correction be accompanied by an editorial in which you specifically repudiated your libelous statements.

As you neither asked for nor received permission to use his biography, as the basis for Nico Demonte’s trade, office, or profession, nor to make or distribute copies, including electronic copies, of same, I believe you have willfully infringed upon Nico Demonte's rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein.

Your web postings and conduct also constitute tortuous interference with the business and contractual relations of Nico Demonte. As such, they are actionable and expose you to the imposition of compensatory as well as punitive damages.

Below, we have noted some of the more patent, malicious, and libelous comments made by you, Wikipedia’s members, editors, and your representatives in your e-mails; some of them also evidence your tortuous interference. If Nico Demonte is forced to file suit to stop your wrongful conduct, he will also seek an award of his attorney fees and litigation expenses.

1. In your postings, – you and/or your editors have stated that Nico Demonte is a Non-notable artist. This is patently false.

2. In your postings, you consistently and falsely stated Nico Demonte "added a lot of his stuff there." Your comments about this are false and malicious.

3. On the subject of Nico Demonte's biography you stated that "I thought that, the way it looks like it could even be copyright violation." Your malicious attempt to interfere with Nico Demonte's business and contractual relations with Astley PR has damaged Nico Demonte for which you are liable in damages.

4. You incorrectly stated and inferred that Nico Demonte's is responsible for so-called "Vandalism" on Wikipedia's website. This is patently false.

5. In one of your postings, you referenced an article on Nico Demonte and claim with no basis in fact that it is similar to Nico Demonte’s biography on Discomusic.com. Your comments about this are false and malicious.

6. In a web posting you stated: "For Nico Demonte, however, he added a lot of his stuff there, without Wiki formatting or anything, just like we saw already. I thought that, the way it looks like it could even be copyright violation, and well, looks like it really is. That text comes straight from this page, and as you can see in the bottom, the content is indeed copyrighted. Now unless he is Bernard F. Lopez himself, it is a violation." Your contact with Nico Demonte constitutes tortuous interference in Nico Demonte relations and contract with Astley PR. There is no basis in fact for your malicious comments. This is patently false.

Many of these errors have been previously brought to your attention. Your failure to correct your erroneous and false statements and their reputation after notice of their falsehood constitutes further publication of libel. It also confirms your malicious intent to maliciously injure Nico Demonte in his trade, office and profession..

I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing information derived from the Nico Demonte’s biography, and all copies, including electronic copies, of same, that you deliver to me, if applicable, all unused, undistributed copies of same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other infringement of Nico Demonte’s copyrighted works, information, images, reputation, and recordings. If you do not immediately publish the requested retraction, and cease and desist from tortuous interference and making false and malicious comments about Nico Demonte, his copyrighted works, biography, recordings, likenesses, and reputation, we will file suit against you. Please govern yourself accordingly. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by January 1, 2006, indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, we shall take further action against you.

Sincerely yours,

Anna Astley

[edit] =

Despite a great deal of editing and discussion, this still appears to be an only partly wikified band vanity article and I'm surprised it hasn't been previously nominated for deletion. No evidence of notability despite many varied attempts to obtain it. The main author has repeatedly resisted attempts to list the article on cleanup, and seems to edit mainly or perhaps only to promote this artist. Google gives me 237 hits at various sites but most and perhaps all can be explained as promotion. Andrewa 13:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep if they really have released an album, though I find this dubious. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 20:37, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • The present article looks like crap, by the way, and should probably be shot. I may change my vote to delete if someone doesn't clean it up soon. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 20:41, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do I feel that "The present article looks like crap, by the way, and should probably be shot", should be a standard template? -- Cyrius|✎ 02:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I change my vote to delete, as the article still looked awful before it got the copyvio notice, and no one is writing a temp page. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 22:56, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Requires serious editing by someone who is not starstruck with or involved in the band. Also verification by a neutral party. Otherwise, delete. Radiant! 23:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Amazon doesn't have anything by Nico Demonte. Non-notable, vanity, copyvio... there are quite a lot of reasons for vaporizing this article. --Idont Havaname 01:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I was about to VfD this myself. See my entry on the talk page for my arguments in more detail. neckro 02:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Hugely energetic bio when it comes to name-dropping, but the subject seems unnotable. Delete. -- Hoary 04:17, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
• Delete, at first I wanted to vote keep, but skive the PoV and fluff and what have they done? Wyss 12:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• has survived two separate and strangely identical attempts on his life by his studio equipment [1] [2] (note the dates carefully) plus people "misunderstand his artistic vision" I say delete this article just for his own safety and sanity.
• Delete for not meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion (as far as I can tell from reading the article, though it seems to try to imply more than it says) Tuf-Kat 03:53, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. The guy tries to co-opt the site for self-promotion and then cries libel when his "article" is up for deletion? Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 18:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Follow-up comment: The entire history of this IP has been dedicated to this same self promotion. That and the threat of legal action was enough for me to list the IP on the VIP page. This has got to stop. - Lucky 6.9 18:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- The Anome 18:55, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, no more. Kiand 19:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Sillydragon 20:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If perchance a non-copyvio version is written at /Temp, delete that too. —Korath (Talk) 22:51, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Libel. These Wikipedians below are creating a potential Libel against Nico Demonte. First, wikipedia has identified this entity using identifiable voices, likenesses, or descriptions of or concerning a person or a company. Wikipedia's comments by its users present the following potential libel case against the artist: 1) It would reflect badly on the character of the person or entity and 2) It could harm the reputation, diminish the esteem, respect or good will in which the person or entity's relevant community holds him, her or it. Insinuations made by Wikipedia's workers, drones, editors, and Users, might reflect badly on character and/or harm reputation of Nico Demonte based on insinuations (see below), insinuations, and statements that imply that there are unstated defamatory facts underlying such statements. Warning: Republication of a libel creates another libel and labeling such artist within said framework, including but not limited to "Vandalism" constitutes further libel. (Special thanks to the legal advice of Georgia Harper @ utsystem.edu)

What is the definition of libel?

The classic definition is:

"a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule."

(Parke, B. in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) GM&W 105 at 108) (reference: http://www.cyberlibel.com/libel.html)

• • Unsigned comment by User:67.167.86.158.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.