Talk:The Royal Court

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Untitled[edit]

They are producing hits for some of the biggest names in music such as Omarion and Mario and Ashlee Simpson. They are an up and coming who have already received credits on singles by major artists. They had a major hit with the song Icebox. Anonymous received consistent video play on MTV and such. "Cut Off Time" is being featured on the commercials for "Bring the Noise." And these are just to name a few. They have worked closely with Justin Timberlake and Timbaland in the production studios. This entry references sites such as MTV.com that reference them. This is a legitimate entry, and I don't understand the rapid deletion tag. 70.149.123.230 23:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need an explanation. This article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion.

General criteria
These criteria apply to all namespaces, and are in addition to namespace-specific criteria in following sections.
1. Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. 2. Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?"). 3. Pure vandalism. 4. Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, or deleted via "proposed deletion", or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply). 5. Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned, with no substantial edits by others. 6. Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, performing uncontroversial page moves, or cleaning up redirects. 7. Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. 8. Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist, except for deletion discussion that is not logged elsewhere, User Talk pages, talk pages for images on Wikimedia Commons, or talk subpages (such as archives) whose corresponding "top-level" page exists. 9. Office actions. The Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedily delete a page temporarily in cases of exceptional circumstances. Deletions of this type should not be reversed without permission from the Foundation. 10. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages". This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary. 11. Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. 12. Blatant copyright infringement. Text pages that meet all of the following: * The material was copied from another website or other source (but consider the possibility that the other copy was obtained from Wikipedia—see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks); * There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving; * The material was introduced at once by a single person; and * There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license. Notify the page's creator when tagging a page for deletion under this criterion; the template {{nothanks-sd}} is available for this. After deleting, administrators should recreate the page from earlier noninfringing page content if available. If multiple deletion criteria apply, list them all on the deletion summary. If notified of a plausible error, the deleting administrator should restore the content and, if a confirmation e-mail has not been received, follow the Wikipedia:Copyright problems procedure, replacing the article with the {{copyvio}} template. Some suspected copyright infringements are listed at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations.

70.149.123.230 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have asserted no reason that "The Royal Court" is important. You have references for each member, but not for the group.Kww 23:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if a page is made individually for each member, it would be acceptable? 70.149.123.230 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:MUSIC. If they pass one of those tests, and you can show a reliable source (not MySpace or YouTube, but a WP:RS) that shows that they pass, it would be fine.Kww 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Under this, #2 and #11 apply.. see: "Icebox" and "Anonymous" 70.149.123.230 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't apply to this page, because they make no mention of a grouping named "The Royal Court."Kww 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Online Article on "The Royal Court" [2]

2. [3] (description mentions "The Royal Court")

3. Blog Entry Mentioniong "The Royal Court" [4]

If individual pages are made for King Logan and John Spivrey, would this be acceptable? 70.149.123.128 11:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, please remember that I'm just another editor ... I can't give permission, just opinions. The rollingout.com article is a good step towards a reference for "The Royal Court" article, and you should put it in there. The description mentioning them isn't a great reference, but it helps. Blogs don't count as sources, because they are too easy to forge.

I think you stand a good chance with the other articles. Just remember to put in references!Kww 12:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main dispute is that there are a lack of more solid and reputable resources merely because they are a new group. But their "newness" does not diminish or devalue their relevance or importance. There is plenty of reason to believe that this trio does indeed exist, does indeed produce music together, etc. 65.2.75.21 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]