Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Schizofreniks

Thanks for your comments and could you give me constructive advise on how to make this article more satisfactory as it is written to be factual and our company has worked with the artists named and I as an individual have worked with all the people named. I went to your google link and it showed up as 700+ different pages found for us. This is not an advert but merely filling in the gaps to another page we are mentioned on. Is it my previous experince that you feel is unnecasary or I I need a seperate page for that? I feel our compnay deserves to be here as an information available for people to learn from. I am happy to make changes as I have never written a page on here before. Thanks. Niki — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecordLabel (talk • contribs)

The link shows 89 unique hits. The 700+ are redundant mentions from the same websites. As per the guidelines on conflict of interest you shouldn't be writing an article about yourself. IrishGuy ^talk 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that as a no then. (RecordLabel 23:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Improvements

I've been reading over your content requirements and feel I could improve the dispute with this article by simply deleting all content other than the first paragraph. 7 songs co-written by Niki are currently featured within the pages of your site and this may count towards the notability factor? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecordLabel (talk • contribs)

You have already admitted above that you are Niki. As per the conflict of interest guidelines, you shouldn't be writing about yourself. Which 7 songs are you referring to? IrishGuy ^talk 00:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know I'm Niki. I agree with your conflict terms as I didn't know this to begin with. I didn't mean to come on here and write stuff about myself but I wanted to really give some background to The Schizofreniks. Just delete the page if it's not right. It's only that I have work on here which I have written and published with 4 different pop acts. (RecordLabel 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)) Niki[reply]

A Question

I can't quite understand that if my page I have written has so many criteria it does not meet, why it isn't put under speedy or proposed deletion? In reading the articles written about 'Articles for deletion' process that would indicate this piece may be able to be reworded so that it isn't deleted. Why didn't it just get deleted quick if it's so bad or is it normal practise to 'put down' the topics that are put forward if they do not conform to your criteria? Thanks ps. Is there any constructive advice from any one at all on this matter as this is a genuine question? (RecordLabel)

Does Irishguy have anything constructive to say?

Do you have anything at all to say??? Your put downs are getting very boring. In fact I read some of your conversations with other people and you don't seem a very popular person. Quite arrogant and a bit of a jobsworth aren't we?? I came on here to contribute and you have done nothing but make biting remarks which are against wikipedia policy aren't they. You seem well versed in this so you should know. RecordLabel 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Ps. I enjoyed your articles about many obscure and relatively unknown people.[reply]

I have also deicded to withdraw my contribution and have made what I feel are appropriate edits. When the wikipedia people get around to reading this can you make a note that Irishguy is a complete A******e. You have some of my work( 7 pieces in fact) which must be considered notable. I am no longer interested in contributing due t the nature of this user's attacks at my work. I currently work with many leading black music artists in the UK but this user has put me completely off contributing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecordLabel (talk • contribs)

Actually, I haven't made any "biting" remarks to you. While you may not like the fact that writing about yourself is a violation of policy, that doesn't mean I am "biting" you for pointing that policy out to you. You should also know that vandalizing other articles out of anger is not a good way to contribute to Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 17:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What have I vandalized exactly?? Isn't Upstart a biting remark. and isn't your editing not very mature a biting remark?RecordLabel 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed out where you vandalized another article. IrishGuy ^talk 18:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your thing isn't it. New people come on here an you bully them with remarks and references to the wikipedia code. Bullying is acceptable on here I take it?RecordLabel 17:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "bullied" you. I have pointed out the policies wherein it is a violation to write about yourself. IrishGuy ^talk 18:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take it you have nothing to say constructive. You have also put my page on slow deletion so that you can relish in aggrovating me by directly putting down my work with biting comments. And you have at all levels avoided my questions for you to be helpful. Your page says it been vandalized 112 times. Why is that I wonder??? You must be someone great in here by bullying people. That's a very notable achievement. Hahaha Irishguy has made notable contributions. RecordLabel 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't avoided your questions. I asked which 7 songs you refered to which you claimed would illustrate notability. You refuse to name them. Claims of notability must be sourced with verfiable references. Simply claiming that you are responsible for 7 notable songs without actually naming those songs...well, that just isn't enough. Anyone can make a claim. As for my user page being vandalized, if you look at who did the vandalizing, they were all known vandals and not contributing editors who suddenly decided to vandalize my page. IrishGuy ^talk 18:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you returning my comments and not jumping in only to add fuel to the fire which obviously isn't the case now as your acting in good faith. I was tempted to alter your work but I thought to myself very quikly that this isn't right because you have made a lot of effort learning about wikipedia and what is acceptable. You mentioned multiple cases of vandalizism but I'm wondering what? You must always assume other editors are acting on 'good faith'. Wikipedia does have a policy of conflict of interest however it doesn't completely outlaw it. They even describe what you must try to avoid when you are writing about yourself which suggests in some cases it must be ok. I resent the comment 'Upstart' as I have worked very hard at what I do and put every minute of every day into my career of music. I used the term that I have done business with each pop stars because it was easier than getting into the fact that I had written published songs with most of them and the others I had rented out a studio which I was managing when a director of a company. Which means I was at the top of the chain so I can claim credit for all of those.RecordLabel 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brad

Your absolutely right and I will take all users on good faith. Irishguy is only trying to do what is right. I have restored the edits of the page. I will also await Wikipedia intervention and see what happens. Thanks a lot Brad as for a moment I thought I was getting the wrong impression of editors on here, you've been very helpful.RecordLabel 18:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page edit

Hi Irish, I went to your page and it looks fine. RecordLabel 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC) I must admit that is a funny thing to be written though. Was this a permanent edit someone did to your page? I didn't think you had a sense of humour for a moment. Good to see you do though. I take your observations on temporary edits as good faith. Thanks for cheering me upRecordLabel 18:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An important question

Hi Irish, I must admit that you seem extremely well versed in Wikipedia policy and I would like to ask you a question. What would I need to do in order to get a valid and informative page on here that has the potential to stay on here as a genuine source of reference? Could you please list all the weak points and criteria that I need to fulfil so that I can go away and over time overcome to come back and have another try and being on here.

I would appreciate this very much because although it is not nice having someone be so critical I figure your the best person to know what I have to do.

Please help me.RecordLabel 18:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article must not be edited by anyone connected with the company to avoid a conflict of interest. Company members can make suggestions on the talk page.

The article must illustrate notability within one of the guidelines: WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, etc.

The notability must be sourced with verifiable references. Blogs, myspace, and links of that type are usually discounted as unreliable. Desired are major media notices, magazine articles, and references of that nature. IrishGuy ^talk 19:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found something that might help to prove notability under the company one. These are 2 links which show evidence of multiple media features of the company.

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satellite/london/gossip?packedargs=date%3D2006-12-13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_All_for_You_EP

The first is from The London Paper website which is a net version of a story that was printed by a paper which went out to millions of Londoners. This is the story that first stirred up trouble about Sony banning us.

The second is in wikipedia which is what lead me here and although the article needs citations it is in fact an acurate article and still publicises us from what I consider another trusted source. Please give my your views on how these might help our company have notability. I would appreciate your polite critisicms of these. Thanks RecordLabel 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The London Paper reference is a good start. The problem is, you aren't the primary subject. Leona Lewis is. As for the second, Wikipedia cannot be used to reference Wikipedia. Outside sources are necessary. The London Paper reference is a good start, though. IrishGuy ^talk 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the conflicts issue there's not a lot I can do about that now because you learn things the hard way so I can't really comment on that other that yes I'm guilty of it BUT I have still tried my best to just give basic facts without being biased. I know they will probably delete but I know this now and I don't blame you Irish for pointing that out because you are right about this, I cannot deny that. I still want to learn what makes a good article though in regards to the actual info. RecordLabel 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the music notability list and my argument would be that The Schizofreniks are not listed as a musician or anything under that notability section but as a 'company' of which the press coverage may swing the notability issue. I do however make references to members of the team including myself but I have given valid references to people that I have worked with and I could give you the links to some of my work on here. I'm only mentioned on The Schizofreniks article though because of my company duties which means we should still be subject to the company notabilty factors only. Can you give me your views on this to please Irish?? RecordLabel 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a company, this would probably need to fit under WP:CORP but as it is an music company, some aspects of WP:MUSIC may apply as well. IrishGuy ^talk 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just give me a little while to read up the music company notes to see if there's anything that can be done. RecordLabel 20:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've had a look and I propose this:

Our music company The Schizofreniks has been subject to the same media coverage sources on the music notability section. As an individual I can also add some additional notability background as a composer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelle_Bryan Solo 1999 Two Hearts (Higher Than Heaven B-Side)

This was one of 2 tracks co-written with Kelle and also co-produced by myself. It was released as a B-side and charted at no.14 in 1999. It was under Mercury records. This is metioned in name at the trusted source of Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Honeyz • 1999 "Why?" (Burger King promo single) • 2000 "More Than One Night" Featuring Lemar (Harmony track) These again are 2 tracks co-written by myself for The honeyz and one was featured on an album which never made the shops and the other was released as a burgerking promo single. The artwork for this is also on thier page on the trusted source of Wikipedia.

I also have the original versions on my previous work page on our site and even have the original master tapes in my cupboard for verification.

2 of these tracks have been heard by numerous people through major company release.

Will this cover the Music notabilty sectionas a composer and also as music press coverage which is current and also names our company?? Would this help or do the sources leave questions? Please give me your polite critisicms. RecordLabel 21:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your earlier statement that Wikipedia cannot be referenced as a source so I'm hoping that whoever put together the info for the past projects I mentioned had a good source because I only have audio proof and the actual recordings at my home. RecordLabel 21:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that as a record label we are never the primary subject. Although our release is, which in fact is a reflection on our company. Under the company notability our products come under the same rule of media coverage. As a record label our products are ultimately what define us and the label is merely a stamp we put on it. Is this a valid argument?RecordLabel 21:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]