Talk:Doppler Studios

Artist listing.
A listing of people who have recorded there is a lot like a list of people who went to the bathroom here. Unless it's a notale session like for example the waterfalls recording it shouldn't be listed like that. It is link overkill and does not aadd to notability. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket: I think that if world-class clientele choose to record at a particular recording studio, that it does add to the notability of that studio. Just like one of the things that some restaurants use to advertise their notability, is pictures of famous people that have chosen to dine there. It sets such a place apart from the other restaurants where people who can eat anywhere they want, choose NOT to settle for. If Doppler Studios was a public restroom, and that was the service they provided to the community...then I think a list of famous people that chose to use that restroom would absolutely add to the notability of that restroom. What a recording studio provides to the community is recording services; if the best and brightest stars in the fields that depend on recording services choose to utilize a particular recording studio instead of another facility, how could that possibly not add to the notability of the studio that was chosen? I have only listed a few of the most notable artists that chose to record at Doppler, not anyone that has ever recorded there; just a small sampling from a variety of genres. The fact that Aretha Franklin and the legendary Clive Davis chose Doppler Studios as one of the places to record Aretha's most recent album is a huge indicator of notability, and it is one of the things that sets Doppler Studios very much apart from the many other recording studios that would never even be considered for such a session. I feel it necessary to point out that about half of the article that I referenced about the Aretha Franklin session is devoted to where and who was involved in the recording of the album; Mix Magazine Online isn't trying to advertise for all those people and facilities in that article, they just know details like that are important to the type of people that read Mix Magazine Online...the type of people that will look for info online about recording studios. In the article I referenced from cinematlmagazine.com, the author mentions almost right off the bat how she was struck by Doppler's notability immediately upon entering their building, because of the gold and platinum records on the wall from some of the high profile artists that had recorded there. Please check out some other Wikipedia pages for recording studios; I picked a few studios at random from the "Recording Studios in the US" page (Cherokee Studios, Milkboy, Kingsize Soundlabs, Henson Recording Studios, Fort Apache Studios, Rancho De La Luna, SugarHill Recording Studios, Sonic Ranch, Atlantic Studios, and American Sound Studio), and every single one of them had long lists of artists that had recorded there, almost all of them much longer than the list I had for Doppler...and for a couple of them, artists that have recorded there was basically the only info they had about the facility. If you check out entries about recording studios in lots of different physical encyclopedias, you will see that many, if not most, include prominent artists that have recorded there as a substantial part of the article. So based on real-world encyclopedia examples, including several from Wikipedia, it seems like a list of several well-known artists that have recorded at a given studio, is a perfectly appropriate thing to have in an encyclopedia article about that recording studio. Drgonzo 1972 (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
I have again removed the listing of artists which was primarily created off this source []. Note this is a user edited list and not what would be a WP:RS similarly to why we wouldn't use Wikipedia for a reference here. Do not restore until an adequate reference is found to support those claims. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket: You did remove the artist list again, but this is the first time you stated that the removal was due to the cited reference; prior to this removal, you stated the removals were because the info was not relevant and that it did not add to the notability of the subject. Clearly that info is relevant and valuable to a reader of an encyclopedic article on the subject, and it absolutely has a place in a Wikipedia article about a recording studio of the caliber of Doppler Studios (see my reasons in my post above). I've reposted notable artists again (including the ones you removed for which I had cited perfectly acceptable sources), and this time I've used different references (except for the ones that were fine to begin with). Hopefully the fact that there are so many references to choose from, when looking for citations to back up statements regarding what artist has recorded in what studio, will help you to realize just how relevant that info is to those in that industry. Drgonzo 1972 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fairly clear that you are connected to User:Stephen at Doppler. I only asked to see how far you would deny being a Doppler employee. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

How does the article reflect a conflict of interest? Wouldn't someone connected to a particular subject be a good person to present facts about that subject? Again, if you can show how something in the article exposes a conflict of interest, I'd gladly remove it. Drgonzo 1972 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested. I see an issue about the removal and restoration of content about sessions at the studio, an issue about the addition and removal of a maintenance tag, and an issue about whether a contributor has a conflict of interest. Which of the questions is the third opinion requested on? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Third opinion was obtained previously [], user who reqd your participation is part of Doppler marketing original username User:Stephen at Doppler Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a third opinion request on the third opinion noticeboard. It appears to have been posted after the diff that you cite.  What is the question?  If the question is about COI, then third opinion is not the forum, because COI issues can be addressed at the conflict of interest noticeboard.  If there is a question about tagging or about content, I can provide a third opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will address those tonight. The tag is there becuse it is a member of their marketing team and another editor has already gave the opinion on the ad ertising but if you want to add a fourth opinion go for it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For that reason, I removed the entry from the 3O board. If there is still a dispute here, consider opening a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

COI Tag history
Article was created by User:Stephen at Doppler last edits may of 2014. Enter User:Drgonzo 1972 and the same page is recreated in the same month []. It isn't a hard leap to determine they are the same person or at the very least on the same marketing team. As they have been almost the only contributors to this page after speaking with another long term wikipedia editor User:78.26 we both determined the article needed better sourcing and removing the promotional undertones. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Advertising
I tackled the biggest part of the promotional aspect of this article. The history section could be better sourced but it doesn't appear to be promotional. I removed the tag but will re-add if it is put back in the article. Please compare []. I checked the sources one by one and determined that WP:SYNTH was happening and overall a good half of the sources were user generated similar to wikipedia or didn't mention Doppler. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)