Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argo Design

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 delete. The takeaway: It is possible that sources exist that would justify the article, but its current writeup is irredeemably promotional Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argo Design[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

High degree of blatant promotions. Not even single In-depth media coverage. All are typical Press or news. Nothing significant, but written like a self promotion saga. A classic case of Wikipedia facing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed. Highly misleading sources mentioned where there is no in-depth coverage for the company why its so significant? Light2021 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG (note: article creator). I am surprised by this nomination, and the nomination of Mark Rolston (designer). This company has received coverage for several of its designs for high-profile projects, including Elon Musk's Hyperloop concept. I did remove a couple sentences sourced by press releases, and perhaps some more trimming is required, but I don't think deletion is the solution here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide what notable sources in depth coverage you are referring to? Portfolio does not defines the Encyclopedia notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. Elon Musk is notable and it is there in Wikipedia, but people/ company working for him has no ground of notability else it will be 1000 of articles like this. Light2021 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems excessive. Are you able to explain why each of these tags are necessary on the article's talk page, specifically, so concerns can be addressed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the whole article from writing to references is a corporate spam and blatant promotion, anything to prove its notability? Light2021 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete., possibly speedy delete as G11. Outrageously promotional , regardless of any posible notability. (One diagnostic for this is the simultaneous writing of articles for both the firm and the principal. Consider the following, blatantly in the lede: ". Argo has proposed designs for a hospital MagicBand, a drone ambulance to speed up emergency support, a car capable of being divided into two motorcycles, and a human-centered experience for Elon Musk's Hyperloop concept." proposed--none produced, none developed, none yet notable. This is the way one writes a promotional web page, not an encyclopedia article.Regardl;ess of how much press they have gotten, our basic policy is NOT ADVOCACY, by which we mean all forms of promotion. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, "Outrageously promotional"? Can we focus on notability and instead of possible promotional language? I simply tried to provide an overview of the company's design concepts and projects, as described by sourcing. If there are specific problems with the article, then let's address them on the article's talk page, but deleting the article does not seem like the best way to address your concern. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another Believer, I know you as a responsible and constructive editor. The article also seems to me steadily promotional in tone, with marginal notability to work with. Why? Language that invites us to share Argodesign's aspirations. Descriptions of proposed designs that seem like (will you pardon me for being direct) blue sky speculation with "few engineering considerations", which is a bad sign in a car meant to split into two motorcycles. And little indication of anything actually produced, apart from five "brand identities". I just don't see any real accomplishment. --Lockley (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your feedback. I just don't see deletion as the solution to addressing some promotional language. I've been working to improve the article, and invite others to help, but I still think the company has received enough press coverage to justify an article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lockley: I have a follow-up question since I've given this a bit more thought. Can you share more about how this article's language is problematic? I've described the company's history, leadership, and design projects as covered by sourcing. Perhaps not perfectly, but I've acted in good faith. What am I promoting? The company? Its designs over those created by other companies? I didn't know something needed to come to fruition before it was considered noteworthy. Wikipedia has articles, and even entire categories, for things that have not yet come to fruition -- planned events, future astronomical possibilities, upcoming albums, films, television episodes, buildings under constructions, etc. etc. No, the hyperloop hasn't come to fruition. But I'm not understanding how coverage of the design concepts are discounted because they haven't come to fruition. What am I not understanding here? Are there not ways to edit the article to address specific problematic language? (I'm sorry, I didn't want to go into too much detail on this page re: promotional language, in an attempt to keep focus on notability, but I'm just trying to get more feedback from editors so I can have a better understanding of this article's issues.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Oh, yeah, of course. I can only offer my own dumb opinion tho. Your sourcing is above average, way above my own standard. The nom sort of accused you of Artspam, which is unfair. I believe you wrote the article (way before any Artspam problem) in good faith. The issue is that the design house has been promoted out of proportion to its accomplishments. The article seems like puffery because it's a faithful reflection of source puffery, and there's a ton of it, which makes Argodesign seem important. I'd expect a notable design house to have a major contract, or something in physical production, or a big-name collaborator, or a major prize, or a competition win, and none of the coverage demonstrates that. Musk is not their client. Cadillac told them their two-bike-car would require a revolution in tire technology sounds expensive. Nothing against them, no need to be mean or supercritical about the designs, they just haven't earned the attention they've generated. So..... no, unfortunately, there's no way to adjust the language of the article to fix that. --Lockley (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and reads more like a paper published by a desperate company trying to get funding. There is literally nothing notable about this company and the language used is completely promotional. Wikipedia is not a platform for marketing or advocacy. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.