Talk:ATP Recordings

This keeps being edited by a user who says it's a random collection of facts, whilst he contributes to pages such as: 'List of social networking websites'. There is little difference, so I see no reason for him to delete the content here.

If you check my contributions to 'List of Social networking websites', you will note that my contributions there are exclusively to remove non-notable additions to that page. Given that the vast majority of what you have been adding to this page has been redlinks, you are correct that there is little difference, and I see no reason NOT to delete non-notable content here. Mayalld (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are hardly any redlinks on the page. And again this only non-notable in your opinion Jamie runout (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding like a complete dick (nothing new) Jamie works for ATP and Mayalld doesn't. If Wikipedia accept that ATP Recordings are worthy of a page at all (and clearly they do) then let Jamie edit that page, given this is actually his job or else someone (Mayalld?) take the facts he supplies and edit the page to reflect them in the way Wiki wish it to look rather than just deleting them.--TheoGB (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Mayalld can you actually give a reason why the information on releases by ATP Records is non-notable? A lot of other record label pages list their releases (Arts & Crafts for example). I'm not exactly well versed in wikipedia's strict policies but it's hardly a random collection of facts and if you ask me contributes to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.54.232 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Mayalld refuses to join this discussion, and as I have added references to my sources, again I have reverted back his edit. Jamie runout (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Jamie works for ATP, then he should perhaps read WP:COI Mayalld (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what User:TheoGB says is true, and Jamie runout is an employee of ATP, then that's a clear conflict of interest. At best, it casts doubt on his judgement as to what is notable and non-notable. At worst, it may fall under the category of spamming if he is acting as a representative of the company. Snowfire51 (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can explain how that would work? Surely the best person to provide details on something is the person that knows most about it. Clearly if an employee of a company wishes to write text explaining how great that company is this is a different matter, but we are talking facts about the releases of a record label. Does this mean that if someone else does thet list and gets it wrong then an employee of ATP Recordings is not allowed to step in and correct errors for fear of seeming like they are nepotistically promoting their own product. If you want Wikipedia to cover content fully then you will require the input of the experts in any given field.--TheoGB (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not based on expert input, it is based on secondary sources and proper references. How much an editor personally knows about a subject isn't important in a direct sense, because an encyclopedia is based on secondary sources.

Furthermore, merely working at a company does not indicate a person is a qualified expert on the company. In fact, it calls a clear conflict of interest into play and casts doubt on that person/employee's objectiveness in deciding what is notable. In short, if an employee of this company tells us that something is notable, and several other established editors don't see the notablility of the item (or if it isn't properly referenced), the neutral perspective would seem to be the clearer one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowfire51 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. It's a shame Wikipedia shuns its opportunity to be something different and impressive and instead attempts to be a less respected Encyclopedia Britannica.--TheoGB (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, however, this is a perfect example of why secondary sources are required. We have someone who claims to be an expert/employee of a record company adding information that's not necessarily notable, all under the guise of knowing better than anyone else. With secondary sources, matters of opinion become irrelevant. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the 'notable' aspect as such. I don't see any value in Wikipedia making available only a partial list of the label's full catalogue. It should either show no such information at all or any aspect of it is reasonable because we have already said the label is notable. It is, after all, a single page of information so one is only exposed to it if one enters that page, which presupposes you have an interest in the subject. Where should one go to make such a comment and put it up for review by the administrators?--TheoGB (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between advertising and providing information, which I would assume wikipedia is for. But i'm sure you can provide me with a link to a page that explains how it isn't. Jamie runout (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points;

I haven't refused to join in any discussion. I have other things in my life than Wikipedia. Do leave a reasonable time for a reply.
Could Jamie runout (talk · contribs) confirm or deny that he is an employee (or director) of ATP records

Mayalld (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Theo is slightly wrong. I'm neither, but I have worked with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie runout (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]