User talk:Baxter789

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Baxter789, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Bree Olson do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tabercil (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adult Stars Magazine

Most of the company history is dug deep within the internet since the company was established in 1996 and was in libo from early 2004 until April 1st. 2008. I'm sure your aware that news companies do not publish press release unless they are from a creditable source. Its very easy to see that adult stars magazine is a real company from what you have seen. I see many wiki entrees with way less or nothing on wikipedia and I feel that ASM is being unfairly singled out! I'm having the corp. attorney review these acts that have been taken by Wikipedia because I feel that there is unfair projudice against Adult Stars Magazine inc.(Baxter789 (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)) Baxter789 I deleted Adult Stars Magazine as it was already deleted (or well on its way to being deleted) by a discussion at articles for deletion for lack of sourcing. The sources provided were primary (such as reprinted press releases), and so did not address the concern. Are there any substantial, reliable, independent sources which have written about this publication? If so, could you please direct me to them for consideration? If not, the subject is not notable and is not suitable for an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't see it. The sources must be about the subject (the magazine), not happen to mention the subject. The first source name-drops the magazine in passing, it is about an awards show. This is a trivial mention and provides little to no usable material for an article. The second is, per the editor's note, an unedited letter from the editor of the magazine, so it is not independent. (It also gives effectively no information about the magazine either, it just happens to be from someone affiliated with it. Again, that is a trivial name-drop, not a substantial source.) The third, again, is about something else—a person affiliated with it, not the magazine itself. Still a passing, name-drop mention, no substance. Fourth source is about an advertising method, and name-drops Adult Stars Magazine as happening to use it. Fifth mentions it very much in passing, simply mentioning that a person used to be affiliated with it, and the sixth specifically states it's a reprinted press release, which is not independent. A few trivial mentions and a reprinted press release are not sourcing. In-depth, independent, reliable material which is actually about the subject (not just happens to name-drop it in passing), are sourcing. You must find that quality of sourcing, for an article. If that doesn't exist, the article is not appropriate. From what I can find, such sourcing does not appear to exist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the company history is dug deep within the internet since the company was established in 1996 and was in libo from early 2004 until April 1st. 2008. I'm sure your aware that news companies do not publish press release unless they are from a creditable source. Its very easy to see that adult stars magazine is a real company from what you have seen. I see many wiki entrees with way less or nothing on wikipedia and I feel that ASM is being unfairly singled out! I'm having the corp. attorney review these acts that have been taken by Wikipedia because I feel that there is unfair projudice against Adult Stars Magazine inc.(Baxter789 (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)) Baxter789

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor has any legal obligation whatsoever to include any topic at all. This is a voluntary encyclopedia project, which bases its facts on primary and secondary sources ONLY. And no, you're not being singled out. If fact, if you can find other articles which don't belong here based on our criteria, by all means let us know, or better yet, help out! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)