Talk:Inspiration (William Hung album)

message: :Image:WilliamHungInspirationAlbumCover.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:WilliamHungInspirationAlbumCover.jpg

message: I believe we can very succinctly merge this with the performer's main page. He is notable for how badly-received he was, but his albums are only extensions of that infamy - and remember, notability is not inherited from performer to album. Whatever substance there is on this article can just as easily fit on the main article for this guy.
I had wanted to propose this for deletion but I decided a merge was the overwhelmingly-better course of action. LazyBastardGuy 14:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've changed my mind - I now propose deletion of this article. I have reduced it to a very brief mention that I plan to place on his main page, but other than that this album is by no means Wikipedia material. LazyBastardGuy 15:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[William Hung]] 

message: If you're going to PROD, the burden of proof rests upon you. My mistake, in that case, because if I was going to say it had no notability beyond being a WH album, I should have been able to prove that. But then if you're going to contest that PROD with the reason of its coverage, the burden shifts to you. Prove it matters. Prove to me I shouldn't have PRODed it, because we need more reason to keep an article than to delete it.
Here are the most significant things we know about this album so far:
*It sold over 200,000 copies.
*It had a fairly-high chart position.
*It consists mostly of cover songs, especially his signature tune, "She Bangs".
*It had scathingly-negative reception.
Why can none of this be brought over to his main article and referenced there? I've already done that, for the most part. I am not trying to start an edit war here, I am only trying to understand why this album matters enough to have its own article. As I see it, one of the prerequisites for having an article is that it can potentially become a featured article, and if it can't, then it's not important enough to be on Wikipedia. LazyBastardGuy 22:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Negative reception is coverage. It shouldn't be a big deal. It was PRODded, someone disagreed, so now it's up to you (or anybody) to take it to AfD. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we even have this article?