Don't Let Me Down (Leona Lewis song) was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Leona Lewis became a victim of internet hacking when her song "Don't Let Me Down", a collaboration with Justin Timberlake, was leaked?
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Justin Timberlake, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Justin TimberlakeWikipedia:WikiProject Justin TimberlakeTemplate:WikiProject Justin TimberlakeJustin Timberlake articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Leona Lewis, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Leona LewisWikipedia:WikiProject Leona LewisTemplate:WikiProject Leona LewisLeona Lewis articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
This redirect is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The article is about Leona, we don't need a picture of her in her own song article (unless she was performing). Songs by both of them were leaked as a result of hacking, so I'd say it was actually quite a strong link as they were both victims of theft. — AARON • TALK 16:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree there is a link and it should be mentioned but the picture seems odd when there isn't one of Leona herself. It's a bit like when the article about Ann Mitchell included a photograph of Barbara Windsor, but not one of Mitchell, so the photo was removed. –anemoneprojectors– 17:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
For any singers article, there is not a picture of the primary artist, unless it is of the singer performing and there is a picture in the live performances section. It's pretty obvious, we don't need a picture saying "Lewis... blah blah blah." The article is about her anyway. It's seems pretty pointless to have a picture of Leona in a Leona article, to me. If there is an mention of any person in an article, there is allowed to be a picture of that person. — AARON • TALK 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Of course it's not pointless to have a picture of Leona in an article most closely related to her than any other person! It's the most sensible picture to include! It doesn't have to be a picture of her performing the song and doesn't have to be related to live performances. It can be related to background and development of the song, or recording and production. She was involved in that, since she's a co-writer. Timberlake's image could also go in that section, since he's also a co-writer. –anemoneprojectors– 11:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand the logic of your disagreement. It makes far more sense for an article to include a photograph of the subject of that article (in this case the performer of the song who is also a co-writer) than something loosely connected. Burke has no direct connection with this song. It's pure coincidence that songs by both artists were leaked at the same time. –anemoneprojectors– 13:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I just don't see the need of having a Leona picture in the background. We know its about her. Pictures in Background sections usually show a featured artist, a writer, producer, recording location etc., not a picture of the primary artist. Look at any Leona/Mariah/Beyonce/Gaga/Rihanna song article, you won't find a picture of them in their own background. A lot of singers have co-written their song, doesn't mean we need a picture to confirm this. The article is all about Leona and her song anyway, we don't need pictures of this. It's not a coincidence because I doubt hackers decide that they want to leak different songs at different times. If they have them, they are going to leak them all anyway. There's nothing wrong with having a picture of Alexandra, as songs by both of them were leaked. It's allowed to be there. It's more interesting to show a picture of Alexandra anyway as people will wonder why it is there and read it to find out. — AARON • TALK 13:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It can go in any section. Yes we can see who the article is about by reading the first line, but articles should be written for people who are not familiar with the subject so we shouldn't assume they came via Leona's page or even her discography. You can get to articles by pressing "random article" or navigating through categories or "what links here" or many other ways that isn't via related articles. A picture of Leona makes more sense than a picture of anyone else. That's like saying we shouldn't have a picture of Leona is any article about her. It might be interesting to show Alexandra Burke but it's illogical since the connection is loose and there's no image of Leona. I don't even think we need to mention that Burke's songs leaked in an article about a Leona Lewis song, especially as (as the article states) the Burke leak was the month before the Leona leak. –anemoneprojectors– 15:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
So you're basically saying that every article should have a picture of that respective artist in the background? It's not needed. Alexandra is mentioned because the investigation involved her too. You can make it a double image, but the Alexandra one is staying. There is no reason as to why her picture is to be removed, a mention of someone else, no matter how involved, means that a picture can be added. There is a picture of Kuk Harrell on "S&M", he is only mentioned once in one section. If you come across a Leona article, chances are you know who she is, or else you wouldn't click on it. — AARON • TALK 18:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, I didn't say every (song) article needs a picture of the artist. What I'm saying is that if this article needs two images, the Alexandra Burke picture should be changed for one of somebody who is actually connected to the song. And all mentions to Burke should be removed, since she has nothing to do with this song. The fact that her songs were investigated at the same time is irrelevant. There is, correctly, no mention of Burke in the hacking/leaking section of Echo (to which I contributed). I think "S&M" is a bad example because Harrell worked on the song, and the article contains three pictures of Rihanna, and the article is much longer than this one. –anemoneprojectors– 19:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's what your suggestion reads like. Alexandra has nothing to do with the song, but she has everything to do with the leak of songs which included this song. Ok, there is a picture of Christina Aguilera on "Birthday Cake", she was only speculated to be on the remix version, but nothing ever happened. There is a picture of her because she is mentioned. The two, not three, pictures of Rihanna on "S&M" are relevant and have meaning though, one from a music video, a demonstration of what happens in the music video, and one of her performing the song live on tour. Very different to having a picture in the background of her. It's completely relevant that the investigation of Burke's songs happened, because they were hacked from the same place by the same people and all leaked onto the internet! — AARON • TALK 19:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The article is about the song "Don't Let Me Down". That includes the leak of the song. Yes other songs leaked but that should be irrelevant, because this article is about that song and no other song. "S&M" has three pictures of Rihanna - she is featured on the single cover. To be honest I'm not concerned with other articles, as this discussion is about this one, and because something is in one article is not a reason for it to be in others—that has always been an invalid argument on Wikipedia. A picture of Leona Lewis could go in any section, but this is no longer about pictures. What I am trying to get across is that Alexandra Burke's songs leaking is not necessary to be mentioned here because this is about the Leona song, not anything that Alexandra has done. –anemoneprojectors– 19:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
A single cover hardly counts as a picture. They are only ever used in info boxes. This isn't a matter of single or song. Like I said, if a person is mentioned in the prose, then there is allowed to be a picture of them. I really don't see the big issue. The sub section is talking about the leaks, and Alexandra is mentioned. A picture of her is allowed to be there. And the picture of Leona performing isn't that clear or that great. — AARON • TALK 19:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
There isn't enough space for three pictures, regardless of how this discussion concludes. Two pictures max. for an article this size. — AARON • TALK 19:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) I'm transfering the picture now. Keep Alexandra if you must but I totally disagree. Like I said, I wanted Alexandra removed, not just the image, but the text too and the discussion was no longer about images. But whatever. –anemoneprojectors– 20:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hey, there really isn't a need to be off with me just because I don't agree to the removal of Alexandra from the article. I have consistently discussed the images, so I don't know where this thing about the discussion not being about that has come from. This has for some reason become a big issue. You asked a question, I answered it. That should have been it. — AARON • TALK 20:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I wasn't really being off with you, but I was just in a hurry to post a link to the image before I had to go offline last night. I did say the discussion is no longer about the images, meaning that it had evolved into whether Burke should be mentioned at all, and the references to images was now irrelevant. I still think there's no need to mention Alexandra Burke in this article. –anemoneprojectors– 11:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
_-_Don%27t_Let_Me_Down.jpg){kind=link}