Talk:Sunday Love
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
|
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|
{oldafdfull|page=Sunday Love|date=2 April 2008|result=keep}}
Contents |
[edit] Dec 30th 2010
On Amazon's site the CD is listed as to be released on Dec 30th 2010.
What is the deal with this? I figure it's either just a flat out mistake, or that it can be blamed on a error in the way Amazon's pre-order system works.
Ideas?--Anthony 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sunday Love (new).jpg
Image:Sunday Love (new).jpg 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 Wikipedia: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 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 04:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sunday Love (new).jpg
Image:Sunday Love (new).jpg 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 Wikipedia: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 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 16:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Content/references discussion moved from AfD
There used to be so many sources for the album, but many of them have disappeared. I am currently looking for more sources that make it notable. Today I've added at least six sources. If these sources also disappear and there's no longer any coverage of the album left, I agree that it should be deleted, but as for now, I still believe it's notable. LoveLaced (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Many of the sources you added were either unreliable (blogs and a fansite) or did not show notability (eBay/Amazon). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- They were there for a good reason. The blog was a fan perspective, probably worded wrong in the article. The fan site I posted cites every single one of it's sources, so it is a very reliable source. And if you had bothered to read the article instead of just taking out what aren't generally considered reliable sources, you would've seen the ebay citation was to show that the singles are being sold over it. If you read the policy on reliable sources, it says that the sources are rarely reliable, not completely unreliable. And where is the wikipedia policy saying that amazon isn't reliable(considering how often amazon is cited for album covers under fair use)? A track listing and picture of the cover were sent to the website from the label so they could begin taking pre-orders. What's more reliable that that? It looks more like you're just out to delete this page because you want it gone, not because it's not notable. LoveLaced (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fansites are not reliable, regardless of their claimed sourcing, I'm sorry. Blogs can be reliable (e.g. through an established publisher like The Washington Post or Wired) but the ones you cited were nowhere near that kind of responsibility. The eBay part was removed because there is nothing special, notable or even interesting in the fact that these singles are available on eBay. Also, I did not remove the Amazon links. I did say that the eBay and Amazon links do not impart notability, which is true. I'm sorry if you think I'm just attacking the article and trying to get it deleted but I really am just holding to the same standards I hold any article (and its sources) to. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did my edits one at a time so you can clearly see what was done. Also, I left in the fansite leak even though that entire part should be stricken from the article—so-called "leaks" do not pass WP:RS, unless, for example, there's an interview where Fefe talks about the leak, otherwise there's no reliable source that the song was originally for the album or is even her singing. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is her singing. It is her album. There are cites stating her talking about her album and who helped her. There are videos on youtube of concerts! Her singing her songs. Fefe isn't fake. All those 13 songs were originally set to be on the album, she even mentioned herself on her myspace. Why would she lie about herself. Are you just waiting for us to find the references for you so we can prove that this is a REAL album? Island has records of the new album. Her official site (which was deleted) had references about the album. Paranoia x (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- And FYI i was there for 1 of the concerts where she sang songs from Sunday Love. If Sunday Love wasnt her album, and the album title, album songs, lyrics etc werent hers than wouldnt she have already been sewed. (Like Avril?)Paranoia x (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoia x (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is her singing. It is her album. There are cites stating her talking about her album and who helped her. There are videos on youtube of concerts! Her singing her songs. Fefe isn't fake. All those 13 songs were originally set to be on the album, she even mentioned herself on her myspace. Why would she lie about herself. Are you just waiting for us to find the references for you so we can prove that this is a REAL album? Island has records of the new album. Her official site (which was deleted) had references about the album. Paranoia x (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did my edits one at a time so you can clearly see what was done. Also, I left in the fansite leak even though that entire part should be stricken from the article—so-called "leaks" do not pass WP:RS, unless, for example, there's an interview where Fefe talks about the leak, otherwise there's no reliable source that the song was originally for the album or is even her singing. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fansites are not reliable, regardless of their claimed sourcing, I'm sorry. Blogs can be reliable (e.g. through an established publisher like The Washington Post or Wired) but the ones you cited were nowhere near that kind of responsibility. The eBay part was removed because there is nothing special, notable or even interesting in the fact that these singles are available on eBay. Also, I did not remove the Amazon links. I did say that the eBay and Amazon links do not impart notability, which is true. I'm sorry if you think I'm just attacking the article and trying to get it deleted but I really am just holding to the same standards I hold any article (and its sources) to. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- They were there for a good reason. The blog was a fan perspective, probably worded wrong in the article. The fan site I posted cites every single one of it's sources, so it is a very reliable source. And if you had bothered to read the article instead of just taking out what aren't generally considered reliable sources, you would've seen the ebay citation was to show that the singles are being sold over it. If you read the policy on reliable sources, it says that the sources are rarely reliable, not completely unreliable. And where is the wikipedia policy saying that amazon isn't reliable(considering how often amazon is cited for album covers under fair use)? A track listing and picture of the cover were sent to the website from the label so they could begin taking pre-orders. What's more reliable that that? It looks more like you're just out to delete this page because you want it gone, not because it's not notable. LoveLaced (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) You're completely missing my point. I do believe that the album was intended to be released. I do not, however, believe that this unreleased album is notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Verifiable information about the album—from reliable sources—can and should be included in the Fefe Dobson article but the album fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and does not deserve its own article. And please don't think I was making a crack about her not singing on her records or that she is "fake", that's not what I said (nor was I implying it, either). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 23:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- But quite the contrary, I had forgotten until someone on the deletion page reminded me, the album was released in some parts of America in Target on it's original release date. And some copies sold before they realized their mistake and pulled it. And an album that was released by a notable artist is notable enough to have it's own page.LoveLaced (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please show that information from a reliable source. Thanks —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 09:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I thought user Hello, Control put a "non-ballot" on the AfD page... yet now it says "the result was keep". Yeah, so obviously just out to delete the page just because. There's plenty of coverage for the page, a lot of it got outdated and is just hard to find now. LoveLaced (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- You obviously misunderstood (or didn't bother to read) the tag; it points out that AfD is not a vote per se—the number of keeps and deletes is not the main basis for whether the article is kept or not. And I resent your unfounded claim that I'm "out to delete the page" for no reason. The article, in the state it was in at the time I nominated it, did not meet WP:MUSIC#Albums. The admin who closed it did what you could not be bothered to do, however, and found multiple references from reliable sources. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I read it, and I just went back to recheck it. It says "please note that this is not a majority vote". yet it was? and that admin did not find multiple sources. i added EVERY SINGLE source on the page:
- You obviously misunderstood (or didn't bother to read) the tag; it points out that AfD is not a vote per se—the number of keeps and deletes is not the main basis for whether the article is kept or not. And I resent your unfounded claim that I'm "out to delete the page" for no reason. The article, in the state it was in at the time I nominated it, did not meet WP:MUSIC#Albums. The admin who closed it did what you could not be bothered to do, however, and found multiple references from reliable sources. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I thought user Hello, Control put a "non-ballot" on the AfD page... yet now it says "the result was keep". Yeah, so obviously just out to delete the page just because. There's plenty of coverage for the page, a lot of it got outdated and is just hard to find now. LoveLaced (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please show that information from a reliable source. Thanks —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 09:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
1. ^ http://www.kidzworld.com/article/6015-fefe-dobson-interview 2. ^ http://concreteloop.com/2006/05/fefe-dobson-sunday-love 3. ^ http://www.melodic.net/newsOne.asp?newsId=5582 4. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Its-Girl-Thing-Original-Soundtrack/dp/B000KJTDHM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1207158657&sr=1-1 5. ^ http://www.fefesource.com 6. ^ http://www.chrissmith-management.com/home.html 7. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Sunday-Love-Fefe-Dobson/dp/B000AOF9RK
i looked up and added ALL of those, which are the only sources on the page, so don't talk about me making unfounded claims.LoveLaced (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
