Talk:Majik Ninja Entertainment

Comments on this article
There's nothing here that I associate with an encyclopedia, not even a strange encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The article is being used to advertise and promote the label and the people who have contracts with it. It's more like a calendar than an article, often telling when albums are going to be released or when parties are going to take place. This information reads like a press release. Against Wikipedia rules, the article repeatedly uses Facebook and Twitter as sources. Linking is excessive. I suggest the editors of this article spend some time reading documentation at Wikipedia, starting with What Wikipedia is not, Neutral point of view, and Conflict of interest Vmavanti (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So do other pages in relation to these. And who would put a record label like MNE in an encyclopedia? So might as well get rid of the other pages in relation to these as well. Demolytionman420 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know who put the article in. Many articles have been around for as many as ten years while barely being touched. People try to enter things here for all kinds of reasons, many of them having nothing to do with Wikipedia's goals, purposes, and policies. Vandalism is a big problem, for example. I'll look at the other labels, and if those articles meet Wikipedia's criteria for deletion, I'll propose that they be deleted. That decision has to come by consensus with other editors. If you want to know more about how Wikipedia works, read some of the documentation. It doesn't take long and you'll save yourself a lot of time and grief. If you want to know more about how a subject gets into Wikipedia, read about Notability and What Wikipedia is not. The usual reason something gets deleted is because it isn't notable or because it isn't sourced very well. Read about finding reliable indepedent sources and how to enter citations for them. Read about neutral point of view and conflict of interest.

Hey as*wipes. Whole page can be cited and confirmed. Leave it be or I'm reporting Jim1138, John Of Ideleon and a long as* name I'm not boutta say. So get on with telling me HOW nothing is up to standards KCKannibal (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

So if this page isn't up to standards, go ahead and delete pages like Psychopathic Records and Strange Music KCKannibal (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion
This page goes hand in hand with other associated acts and labels, example: Psychopathic Records, Blaze Ya Dead Homie, Boondox, Insane Clown Posse etc. It is a major label and references come from Faygoluvers, which is not a fan site, it is a news website in relation to the things on these pages. So in that case might as well delete everything in relation to Juggalos no matter how much everything is kept up to date and done correctly. Demolytionman420 (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Keeping things up to date" isn't what Wikipedia is for. You're thinking of a newspaper, television, or the internet. esp Facebook. Wikipedia is nothing like Facebook. You might want to read What Wikipedia is not]. My comments and edits are about this article, this label, not other articles and other labels. So leave that aside for now. You didn't address any of my concerns. For one thing, you can't use Facebook as a source and that is still one of your major sources. For more help you can click on my username. You might want to read more of Wikipedia's documentation, such as Notability and Verifiability, because If you want to use this site you have to know what it's about. Wikipedia has nothing to do with advertising or promoting a record label, musician, movie, TV show, book, celebrity, cause, or movement that you should think should be supported. There are plenty of other places for that kind of thing.

Isn't Wikipedia used as a platform for knowledge and for information? So why is it so bad to update this regularly and inform people of what to do? KCKannibal (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Many pages on this website are updated daily. Demolytionman420 (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I posted a semi-protected edit request below, in which I address many of the "concerns" listed in the original change request. I included plenty of RS and notable sources there to show that they are independently notable, the main reason cited as the page needing to be redirected to the Twiztid page. Needs for edits are certainly needed, however removing the page was not what was warranted. Froggyfixit (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2018
The redirect from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majik_Ninja_Entertainment) to twiztid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twiztid) should be removed, and the previous page be restored. the reason for it being changed was due to it not passing the WP:NCORP standard. This is a small independent record label splintering from Psychopathic records ( a label being saved from this standard.), and thus will not have huge amounts of heavy press.

There is more coverage out there to establish the WP:NCORP standard, such as in which the label is discussed. Here is an article from 2016 regarding a new album within the label, showing a continuation of coverage in addition to the article I already linked. Here is yet another independent article talking about the label itself indicating it is currently growing.

there is prolonged controversy from the split from psychopathic records, as evidenced by music videos from both sides slamming the other side. I did not link those in here as I am unaware of that particular policy.

The sources above indicate it is notable, both from the controversy and the continued coverage from multiple independent sources, is verifiable from the other links, and are larger news sites that are reliable.

This page was removed due to it being a "circular" page and a label, not an indiviual. the issue is that faygoluvers.net is the primary site that followers of this genre/record label go to for information, and also one of the few that will most reliably interview and cover this scene. Psychopathic Records also has a multitude of their citations from faygoluvers.net; Are we to then erase anything from wikipedia that doesnt have a media company army to write soft hitting stories to meet an arbitrary line to meet the WP:NCORP?

The second acknowledgement for a redirect in the request states "not independently notable. Signifant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NCORP" I have sourced articles above both RS and independent, and thus meets WP:NCORP. The page for WP:NCORP states "Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet" I have listed several that fit the notability standard, I can add these back in, once the redirect is removed. Froggyfixit (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The appropriate place to raise this is WP:DRV, but I don't see anything in your sources that would speak to notability. You may wish to instead go to WP:RFD, where you could request the redirect be retargeted to the parent record label. At least then you could use your sources to add facts to that article about this subject. A reference can be perfectly fine to verify a set of facts and still not speak to notability. I'm guessing any extensive discussion of a record label in a biography, which is where the redirect points now, would be found off topic. John from Idegon (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌ John from Idegon (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As you are one of the ones that continued to erase things and were targetted by other users for verbal harrassment on the deletions, I dont really feel youre not biased here about the page. Further, the WP:NCORP cites notability as "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Based on this, a multipart test is able to be made. 1. Are there multiple sources on the material? (Yes.) 2. Are they secondary sources independent from the topic? (Yes.) So your contention of "its not notable because I say it isnt." doesnt exactly hold water. Unless youre saying three different recognized news sites are not reliable and independent, they do speak to the notability. Further, it says that just because an article isnt cited doesnt mean the item isnt notable. Tell me how you were unable to find any sources, when I was able to find those three above (and others) in less than 15 minutes? yet anotehr that talks about their label is from the Detroit news. Yet another that passes the test above, rather than your because I said so.

I have started a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard to decide what action to take - see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)