An editor has nominated She'll Be Right Records, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/She'll Be Right Records and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kimo nz 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 {{hangon}} to the top of the page (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. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on YFC Band 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 {{hangon}} 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. ShootinPutin109^Talk 04:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Just so you know, I wasn't attempting to "sanitise" the NZ On Air article, but I can appreciate that it appeared that way to you. I was trying to rewrite it so it would be more balanced, but it looks like I tipped the scales too far in the other direction. I've added back the note about the BSA ruling, as that's an important detail.

Also - do you have any sources about the Annabel Fay/NZOA controversy? Something that mentions NZOA ignoring the guidelines in the Broadcasting Act? A news article would be great. You know Wikipedia - all about the sources! Cheers. Robyn2000 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good list of links you left! And I'm chuffed to see my own blog in there (5000 Ways). Do you feel like rewriting the article with those refs, or shall I have a go? Robyn2000 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I've made a couple of small changes to the NZ On Air article. You might not appreciate what I'm doing, but I want to assure you that when I make edits, it's not done with the intention of "sanitising" the article or writing a "puff piece" (key Wikipedia principle: assume good faith). Rather, I'm just trying to rewrite it to keep it in line with Wikipedia's standards on article style - specifically needing to keep a neutral point of view.

Are you familiar with "What Wikipedia is not"? I'd recommend having a good read of it, particularly the section on "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". You obviously have a lot of strong feelings on NZ On Air, but it's not appropriate to write editorial commentary in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps you could start a blog or a Facebook page on the subject if you have a lot to say that doesn't fit on the Wikipedia page. Robyn2000 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments.

Section 39(a) - I did a lot of research into this. The Act says that NZOA must consider "the extent to which the persons seeking the funding for the project to which the proposal relates have sought and secured funding or other resources for the project from sources other than the Commission". This doesn't actually mean "If your family is rich, you shouldn't get money", but that could be considered. It can also go the other way and is one of the reasons why NZ On Air now requires co-funding from the applicant in music video grants. So I tried to write something that reflected this: "The Broadcasting Act does not directly require applicants to be means-tested, but section 39(a) does require that NZ On Air consider what other funding an applicant has received."

The PM's quote - you're right, it was a really bad quote! I've actually removed the whole sentence as I couldn't find a good quote from him on the subject. It's vaguely noteworthy that the PM commented on the show, but less so when he didn't really have anything to say!

Other controversies - like any Wikipedia article, this one is a work in progress. I figure the best thing to do is to get the current article in good shape, then look at adding new content. My next task is getting the article introduction and Activities section sorted out. It's barely referenced, which is something it needs. I'm just one person and I have limited time to work on the NZ On Air article. I just do what's enjoyable for me! Robyn2000 (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly enough, I thought the PM's quote was generally supportive of NZ On Air! I removed it because I felt it was an awkward quote that didn't generally say anything significant. Do you have a source for a better quote from him?

And I'm really glad you've been inspired to contribute more to the article! I look forward to seeing your contributions. Robyn2000 (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know I'm Robyn Gallagher of 5000 Ways to Love You. And I assume you're also the person behind the Sounds Like Us NZ Music group on Facebook. Nice to meet you!

Re the PM's quote. You originally commented "Also if you're going to try and include a supporting quote from the prime minister of NZ then you should include it in its context and not edited" That's all I was referring to. You felt the quote I had was inadequate; I'm saying, ok, find a quote that is adequate. That's all.

You seem to be attributing malice to my editing choices when there simply isn't any there. This really upsets me. Robyn2000 (talk)

Thanks for your last comment. You've left me with some interesting things to look into. Robyn2000 (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have written something on the talk page re the controversies section. Please respond. Please also make sure you keep the following wikipedia policies in mind: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest , Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. - SimonLyall (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes have re-introduced the issues I fixed up over here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NZ_On_Air&oldid=558682243#Failure_to_archive_funded_music_works , including getting Robyn's website address wrong. I think its misleading and irrelevant to call the film archive privately owned, when its a charitable trust that receives most of its funding from the govt. You'll have a better chance of the criticisms remaining if you stay as brief as possible, because I don't think anyone is that keen to expand the rest of the NZ On Air entry when there are so many other NZ articles needing substantial work.Haminoon (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separate from this NZOA thing wikipedia/wikimedia is always on the lookout for photos to illustrate articles. If you have any of people or events that you own the copyright to and are able to release then that would be great. - SimonLyall (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW could you please follow normal convention with you talks. It makes it easier to follow discssions.

• Please sign your comments with 4 tildes (see at bottom of edit window).
• Please reply to a comment by putting what you want to say below it ( rather than on another page), usually you indent your comment with a : .

Thanks. - SimonLyall (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for the heads up. I'm not a devoted wiki follower like some of you, just trying to include valuable info and insight as I find it. It's a shame this info can't be viewed and presented in a fair way but it appears someone has an interest in sanitising itNzindie (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Squirm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable band.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Drowners Band (Sweden) 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 or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — Diannaa (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Squirm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirm until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GamerPro64 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]