User talk:Americanguy1

The Wrex

Hi, as Corvus cornix suggested I have moved this page into your personal space so you can work on it before you reintroduce it into article space. Malla nox 12:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from The Wrex talkpage

If you look at the articles referenced and valid in this article, you will find that there are many references to this era of Seattle rock history that involved the Wrex. Please advise why this is different than other early 1980's rock venues like the 9:30 Club and others similar in nature. I realize that this article needs building on, however, I am working on getting editorial input from the musicians that know the history of this rock venue.

Please advise of your opinion for maintaining the subject article in an acceptable fashion.

Thank you.

Wrex Nightclub has been repeatedly recreated and repeatedly deleted as advertising. The bogus WP:RFPP disallows any possibility of assumption of good faith. If you could possibly provide some reliable sources, that might make your case better. But don't discuss it as compared to any other articles, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never considered a valid argument. Corvus cornix 04:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a bogus WP:RFPP and there has been nothing but good faith intended. I felt the admin was not giving me an opportunity to use the talk process by deleting even when I improved the article by removing references mentioned. I am looking into how to provide more explicit reliable sources, and improve my case. This is 25 years old history, and the sources are difficult to verify. How can I become a verifiable source when it is my own memory. Is memory of events not allowed? Thank you for your input.

This venue closed in 1982, therefore this could not possibly be advertising.

The Stranger mentions this rock venue in several articles, and this is a reliable published newspaper.

The Seattle Times archives is a reliable source in this article: Seattle Times article

WP:RS requires that the subject of the article be the primary focus of the source, not just a glancing mention. It also requires "multiple" sources. Corvus cornix 04:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is the primary focus of this source: Music for the People: The Clubs that Formed the Backbone of Seattle's Early Alternative Scene

Um, no, once again that's just a passing mention. Corvus cornix 04:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. Can you please tell me how I can take 30 or so mentions and assimillate them into a reliable source? Does not the volume and variety of sources have some impact on the reliability and importance of the article subject?

No. Surely the Seattle Times has reported about the place? Corvus cornix 04:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was 25 years ago, haven't been able to locate yet. Does that mean there needs to be an article about the WREX as it's only subject. Again, there were several, but long long ago. Thank you.

Not necessarily as the only subject, but if, for example, there was an article about clubs in Seattle, and it was included with a long discussion about it. But then again, it needs multiple sources. Are there any books about the Seattle club scene? Corvus cornix 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. Again, Seattle didn't explode onto the national scene until a few years later, so this is difficult to find a source which is that specific. I'll keep working on this. Can I try to create this again without getting penalized for my first effort? It understand. I will create the littany of history and links first at wrex.us, which I just purchased as a location for this information. If you have to delete this for now, please note that I tried to follow the policy but couldn't quite get there.

Why not work on it at User:Americanguy1/The Wrex until you've got it smoothed out? Corvus cornix 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouragement. If this is marked for speedy deletion, what happens. Should I start over. There is no article to edit anymore. I'm afraid if I revert the article, it will hurt my case. Wikinoia?

It's probably best to start over again. Write about the club's history, what famous bands played there, its part in Seattle's rock scene, whatever you can find. Don't write it like an ad. And be sure to use refrences. Corvus cornix 05:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So assuming I can create this more upstanding version, I would post it as a new article again, and hopefully the punishment wouldn't so be so quick and severe, is that right? There is no wikigod, it seems, no guarantees. This is very interesting. I must redeem myself so I can learn this and maybe you can tell me how to become an admin someday. I hate my job. Thats why I opened the nightclub in the 80's. Still hate my job. But I love to write. Thank you Corvus cornix.

You're welcome. Once you have the article ready with references and it's all spiffy and clean, you can list it at WP:DRV and ask the folks there if they think it will pass muster. Corvus cornix 05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

)

A couple more questions Corvus: Is there any way at all to put the information that only I hold in my memory into the article?

How do I become verifiable or reliable or this contrary to the nature of this type of writing? I was there isn't enough unless its been written about. For example the history of a certain day with a certain performance that I witnessed.

If there is no written verification for certain portions, can I use witnesses?

Unnn. Those would be classified under original research. If there were interviews which have been published ... Same thing with yourself. Personal knowledge is not an acceptable resource. Corvus cornix 06:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]