User talk:Gene93k
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| September 2007 – March 2008 |
Contents |
[edit] Lodge of Four Seasons Marina
I added some references to Lodge of Four Seasons Marina. I suspect that both the marina and the lodge itself are individually notable. See this Google News archive search. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lodge of Four Seasons Marina. --Eastmain (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rainbow Swash
Good work on Rainbow Swash. I'd noticed that it seemed incomplete and put it on my watchlist to get to someday. But you beat me to it and probably did a better job too! Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This is pertaining to the HHN Records article.
- WP:CORP, states, An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. WP:MUSIC states, A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts. WP:RS, states, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Music charts were submitted. Mass Record Pool, who are located in Boston Mass. They have no affiliation with the label. Illinois Record Pool is an world reknowed record pool servicing the entire world. The label has no affiliation with them. • Gene93k said without warrant, or obviously never verifying anything that the label published those charts theirselves. Those charts came straight from these entities web site and can be easily searched online and anyone who takes the initiative can easily determine that HHN is not affiliated with them in any way. And according to WP:RS. • Gene93k should have explained why those references were rejected. • GhostDog21 (talk) 21:40:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- And according to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/HHNRecordsPR, there's not much reason to worry about GhostDog21's opinions on the topic.Kww (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Regardless, That is a valid argument about the label. That wasn't the issue at that time. It was about lack of secondary sources. Nobody did their research or followed procedure, that is my point. That was posted to show that the so-called Administrators were not doing thier jobs.• GhostDog21 (talk) 12:38:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Those sources need to be WP:RELIABLE and coverage non-trivial to establish. The "renowned" record pools failed to impress me at the time that they were professional news or trade publications. A second look has has not changed my mind. And, yes I did search for other reliable sources. Your arguments and evidence failed to convince based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In fact, the HHNRecordPR edits have erased any doubts I might have had. The articles were self-promotion, a big no-no on Wikipedia. Finally, please don't bash the editors who don't see things your way. Petitioning them like this won't get your articles restored. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm not bashing anyone and nor am I insulting everybody in anyway. I'm just following the guidelines and procedures. We are having a debate. Ah, changing your stance now I see. Your original statement was, and I quote "The charts is self-published" which failed the WP:RELIABLE. Due to that, the debate should have never been closed. As, I did prove those were not "self-published" charts. Don't try to change it up now. And don't use the HHNRecordsPR edits, you didn't have that before. As I've already stated, I am NOT with the label and I am NOT HHNRecordsPD. At this time, I don't care about the article anymore. I just co-signed HHNRecordsPD's statements, The Administrators are not doing thier jobs right. That is my point. HHN Records is soon to be considered a major label, sombody will give them a proper article in due time.• GhostDog21 (talk) 15:07:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- There is no change in stance. Just because you didn't get a point-by-point comeback, doesn't mean you proved anything. Your arguments were unconvincing. After spitting hairs about how and by how much HHN's references fail, they still fail. The record pools are not considered WP:reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Even if they were for the sake of argument, they lack depth to help HHN with WP:CORP. No shift here. Also, I don't see them as nationally-recognized charts to help the HHN's artists and records pass WP:MUSIC. The admins' main job at AfD is to judge editor consensus. The consensus was clear after nearly 5 days, credible proof of notability was not in evidence. If you feel differently, please take the decision to deletion review. Otherwise, this matter is closed until the soon to be considered major HHN Records gets some real press attention and not before. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] AfD nomination of Robert C. Knutson
An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert C. Knutson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Knutson. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? andy (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of DCI Telecom
An article that you have been involved in editing, DCI Telecom, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DCI Telecom. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
