Revision as of 20:08, 12 October 2019 editBigDwiki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,474 edits →Comments on October 2019 editing dispute: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:32, 12 October 2019 edit undoJustlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators121,147 edits the publicity materials of an air-conditioning contractor?Next edit → | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::: If the article is to take Star Services' statements regarding the buildings "challenges" at face value, it should do the same with that sources "solutions" and "results" section. Regarding ], this is a pretty clear case of that, though you're welcome to seek additional opinions on that. <b>] ]</b> 20:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC) | ::: If the article is to take Star Services' statements regarding the buildings "challenges" at face value, it should do the same with that sources "solutions" and "results" section. Regarding ], this is a pretty clear case of that, though you're welcome to seek additional opinions on that. <b>] ]</b> 20:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
::::The source doesn't actually state the that the problems were resolved, it simply states that parts ..."pumps"...were replaced. I've clarified that detail.] (]) 20:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC) | ::::The source doesn't actually state the that the problems were resolved, it simply states that parts ..."pumps"...were replaced. I've clarified that detail.] (]) 20:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
:::::{{u|BigDwiki}}, {{u|Doublehelixguy}}, {{u|Ohnoitsjamie}}, I'm sorry, but since when were the a ] for information about a historic building? And where in is there anything about "Darryl Smith of Hammond, LA", who is presumably a ] and entitled to privacy under that policy? That is anyway some kind of advertising blog site – – and surely not a ] by our standards. Of course I should have noticed that (and removed it) when I edited this page a few weeks ago – sorry about that! I strongly suggest removing all dubious sources and information sourced only to them (''i.e.'', the whole last paragraph at the very least). If the building is notable it should be easy to find solid reliable sources that discus it in depth; if they can't be found, it may be that we don't need this article. Is it listed by the National Register of Historic Places or whatever that thing is called? ] (]) 20:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:32, 12 October 2019
Skyscrapers Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Alabama Stub‑class | |||||||
|
Comments on October 2019 editing dispute
- Regarding this edit; user review sites such as Travelocity do not meet reliable sources guidelines.
- Regarding this edit; a stairwell fire that involved no injuries or serious damage is not notable, and doesn't merit inclusion in the article per WP:NEWS; furthermore, the reference used a source for the statement that the building contained "unreliable fire systems" prior to the fire actually describes remedies taken by the new building management upon taking ownership of the building in 2017; connecting it to the fire is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. OhNoitsJamie 19:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have re-added the material that complies with WP:RS and WP:SYNTH without the fire material. I believe that a building evacuation (regardless of the fire status) which made local news is indeed credible and belonging in the article. BigDwiki (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- If the article is to take Star Services' statements regarding the buildings "challenges" at face value, it should do the same with that sources "solutions" and "results" section. Regarding WP:NOTNEWS, this is a pretty clear case of that, though you're welcome to seek additional opinions on that. OhNoitsJamie 20:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- The source doesn't actually state the that the problems were resolved, it simply states that parts ..."pumps"...were replaced. I've clarified that detail.BigDwiki (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- BigDwiki, Doublehelixguy, Ohnoitsjamie, I'm sorry, but since when were the publicity materials of an air-conditioning contractor a reliable source for information about a historic building? And where in the cited source is there anything about "Darryl Smith of Hammond, LA", who is presumably a living person and entitled to privacy under that policy? That is anyway some kind of advertising blog site – "Alabama Media Group is a media company that tells stories and connects businesses to the people who read them through advertising solutions" – and surely not a WP:RS by our standards. Of course I should have noticed that (and removed it) when I edited this page a few weeks ago – sorry about that! I strongly suggest removing all dubious sources and information sourced only to them (i.e., the whole last paragraph at the very least). If the building is notable it should be easy to find solid reliable sources that discus it in depth; if they can't be found, it may be that we don't need this article. Is it listed by the National Register of Historic Places or whatever that thing is called? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- The source doesn't actually state the that the problems were resolved, it simply states that parts ..."pumps"...were replaced. I've clarified that detail.BigDwiki (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- If the article is to take Star Services' statements regarding the buildings "challenges" at face value, it should do the same with that sources "solutions" and "results" section. Regarding WP:NOTNEWS, this is a pretty clear case of that, though you're welcome to seek additional opinions on that. OhNoitsJamie 20:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have re-added the material that complies with WP:RS and WP:SYNTH without the fire material. I believe that a building evacuation (regardless of the fire status) which made local news is indeed credible and belonging in the article. BigDwiki (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)