Talk:Waterman–Smith Building

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. OhNo itsJamie Talk 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. OhNo itsJamie Talk 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)
 * ,, , 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)
 * I agree that StarServices is not a solid source per guidelines. My more immediate objection was that the information from it was being cherry-picked to focus on the negative, leaving out important context (that is, the service group identified issues, then claimed that they solved them). Removing it all together, along with the name of the owner, is fine with me until suitable third-party sources that meet WP:RS guidelines can be found. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While I think that there could be better sources than Star, there are none I can find. They have details about the building along with photos. While it may be an advertising piece, if you read away from the advertising, it contains factual statements and research. On AL.com, they are definitely reputable and are the owners of nearly all newspapers in the state, including the local Press-Register. I have some concerns regarding 's purpose for editing as it seems he registered solely to edit this article and may be a WP:COI violation. BigDwiki (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This information should remain or this article just needs to be deleted. It seems like some serious WP:COI on both sides. The good and the bad needs to stay in order to maintain neutrality. Also, I don't see the BLP violation. If there is a violation, please reference the specific policy. As one source shows one owner and another source shows differently, both should stay as both are relevant. 172.108.143.98 (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You chose to keep the negative portion of the starservices article, while excluding the remedies they stated in the same section; that hardly seems neutral. I concur with User:Justlettersandnumbers that PR from a services website is not a suitable source, especially for material of questionable importance. If you feel that removing the starservices references leaves no other choice other than deleting the article, feel free to nominate the article for deletion, and be sure to include that rationale. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like the page is protected so only administrators can edit it. Looking at the history between one of the editors and who all is editing this page, it seems like any edit they make, or anyone that makes similar edits, is going to be reverted by the wikihound. 75.104.80.8 (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)