Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amarillo Design Bureau Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, evidently WP:POINT nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amarillo Design Bureau Inc.

Amarillo Design Bureau Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not meet notability guidelines Obewanz 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also this entry asserts relevance under the Wikipedia Texas project - my response to that inclusion is as follows:

I don't know where to start on this issue, but this is absurd. You should not start a project on a state and then begin to list advertisements for companies that operate within the state. If the article was about a state department or similar entity then it would certainly be appropriate. Company listings are found in the phone book, both online and in print. Given the instistence on removal of certain other companies based on non-notability criteria, this article too should be deleted. Obewanz 14:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Wrong venue. The place to suggest deletion of this article is AFD, not MFD. If you need help in figuring out how to put it up on AFD, I'm sure someone would be willing to help you. I do think that your nomination smacks of WP:POINT, over the Miniature GameWorks article being speedied. As for the ADB article being adopted by WikiProject Texas, it is up to them to decide whether they want it falls under their project or not, but that is not related to whether the article gets deleted or not. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Mr. Groggy Dice... If I am trying to understand the difference between the two and why certain articles remain when other articles are removed, is it not appropriate to question the actions and use the recent experience as a reference? Or should I merely keep everything in the abstract to keep from offending anyone?

Now that we are past that issue, please explain the difference between AFD and MFD? And since you so aptly noted that I might need help figuring out how to put it up on AFD, maybe you would be willing to assist. Also, could you please provide the link to WP:POINT so that I may examine your reference? Also, if information has been sitting in WP for quite awhile and not been reviewed, yet EXACTLY the same information is submitted recently and receives Speedy Deletion, shouldn't that indicate that someone needs to examine the existing entries to determine why they should stay versus the ones that no one will ever see because of Speedy Deletion?

This whole thing smacks of a political power-ride, if you ask me - which is completely and totally inappropriate in the context of an "Encyclopedia". If you are going to delete new entries based on a given criteria, then you should be prepared to evaluate existing entries based upon the same criteria. Then again, that would be the Non-PC - correct thing to do.

Just to add a little further information to your comment; I chose this entry because it was obvious to me that it was a marketing campaign. The information presented only tended to raise the self-importance of the game, the company, and it's owner(s). It does not present any information on how this game has affected gaming culture, provided anything notable to the gaming community, nor has it even incorporated information found outside of it's own published material. This seems to be clear to me given the fact that I have been pointed to WP:CORP for information regarding this controversy.

Basically, the process is similar to the one you already went through with MFD, just using afd instead of mfd on the templates. Directions are at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. However, I hope you reconsider. SFB is one of the oldest and longest-running wargame series, and your nomination of ADB is likely to be seen as WP:POINT sour grapes over your own company's article getting deleted. It will just alienate people further. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this company easily passes notability as publisher of Star Fleet Battles (as Groggy Dice says above), amongst other games. I would also agree with Groggy Dice in that the nomination seems to be a case of WP:POINT and not really done in good faith. User:Craw-daddy|Talk 17:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: (coughs) SFB has over sixty thousand Google hits. ADB has over fifty thousand. It is a renowned wargame and a renowed gaming publisher, respectively, and I am all ears as to what "notability guidelines" the nom is referring, precisely, or which policies require articles to demonstrate proof that the subjects have affected a culture or provided anything to the community.  RGTraynor  18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable games publisher, trivially confirmed. Obewanz, none of your complaints make sense. A WikiProject banner on a Talk page is not an "assertion of relevance" (whatever that is) and has no bearing on a topic's notability. This certainly does appear to be a WP:POINT-making violation as evidenced by all the leading questions in your rant. --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now that this is at AfD, I'll declare clearly as a keep. From his talk page and Marasmusine's talk page, the nominator seems to be reacting to his company's article getting A7 deleted by trying to get other wargame company articles deleted. He has also picked a fight at Talk:Charles S. Roberts that a wargamer like him ought to know is frivolous. Hopefully, he will accept that his company doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and stop this unproductive campaign. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.