Talk:AGV Sports Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Motorcycling  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brands  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

notability[edit]

The AGV Sports Group article only explains the history of the company (founded 1985 in US) and the unique intellectual property issues due to it's historical relationship with AGV Helmets (founded 1947 in Italy) and gives details about the history and development of this brand name. No current product, marketing or sales information is present in this article. There is a historical list of some of the professional motorcycle racers who have been sponsored by AGV Sports Group over the past 25 years. On Wikipedia one can find a lot of similar articles about companies for example - Yamaha, Suzuki or Toyota —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyRoberts 86 (talkcontribs)

I'm deferring deletion, as reviewing administrator. I think the company is important, and there's material for anarticle here. But pleae
  1. read our Business FAQ
  2. add 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases, or material based on press releases)
  3. make sure all material here meets WP:COPYRIGHT
or the article may not really meet our standards. I'd advise you to make these improvements very quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion. We judge each article on its own merit--we are not a directory DGG (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I did what I could to clean it up. I think it'll remain notable, but there's a lot of advertising and an IP with a fairly clear COI. tedder (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

= Vandalism, interference, removal of pertinent information =[edit]

This site has been the victim of almost 60 days of vandalism by one lone individual applying his own arbitrary and capricious thoughts and opinions to only this one particular site. Many request to stop have been sent. Many revisions have been made only to be "undone" Tagging the “undos” of the vandalism by the culprit is really rather comical. Julia Dzigora —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaDzigora (talkcontribs) 16:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)



spam, advert, link cleanup[edit]

I removed a bunch of links and re-added maintenance templates. See the WP:EL policy; I don't see the significance of (a) a link to a non-reliable source site that shows the company logo, (b) links to other companies' websites (such as AGV, the italian manufacturer. This article is still in need of reliable sources to prove notability, and tendentious editing doesn't help. The fact tags on the founding information can easily go away when reliable sources are found to back up the claims. I initially added them because the more advert-ish version of the article had two different founding dates. tedder (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Maintenance tags and article improvement[edit]

So here's what I see. This article was created by AndyRoberts 86, marked for CSD-Spam, saved by AndyRoberts 86, tagged for improvement by DGG, an IP removed maintenance tags.

By this time, the article was very advertising-heavy: it was laden with a promotional image gallery, tons of unsourced content, and was certainly not written from a neutral point of view. I added articleissues at the top for advertising, cleanup, and primarysources. The IP editor from above removed them; this cycle continued a few times, with warnings on their user page, until they were blocked from editing for a short period of time on 13 Mar 2009.

Prior to them being blocked, I de-crufted the page, removing large blocks of unsourced content and placing fact tags on key pieces of data- especially the company founding date, since it was listed as 1979 and 1985 in various edits of the article. I then removed the cleanup tag and merged in the COI tag to the articleissues (it was pretty apparent the IP editor had a serious COI with the article.

This modus operandi continued- myself and other editorws remove inappropriate content and external links, the IP reverted without explanation, and that was rolled back as vandalism. (I'm not linking these- there's too many of them).

On 19 Mar 2009, AndyRoberts 86 started removing maintenance tags again- especially the fact and advert tags. JuliaDzigora, yet another single-purpose account, showed up on 21 Mar 2009 and began removing fact tags. Again, I'll simplify, but this user, the IP user, AndyRoberts_86, and myself went back and forth on the fact tags again; I asked AndyRoberts_86 to take it to the talk page. He and another user took it to my talk page; which makes for very interesting reading.

On 24 Mar 2009, another editor, TimTay (at my behest) came to the AGV page to pitch in. He removed the imagestack and tried to clean up the external links, as well as quite a few other helpful fixes. (some of which I'd already tried to do, others from his fresh assessment of the article). JuliaDzigora and AndyRoberts_86 quickly returned and made changes.

Most recently, JuliaDzigora began removing the fact tags again on 8 Apr 2009. The details of this are in the recent edit history of the article. Notably, please look at the editsummary.

I know this has been very long. It appears the IP, JuliaDzigora, and AndyRoberts_86 may be socking or may simply have independent conflicts of interest in this article. TimTay and myself have made legitimate efforts at keeping the article, but it has turned into a battleground. Again, see the talk on my talk page as well as the discussions here. I've tried to assume good faith, considering the logged-in users are relatively new and enthusiastic about the subject. Generally these have been met with either no comment or some form of outrage (such as this diatribe (which happened after I filed a 3RR), or the edit summaries seen in the article history).

I'm willing to follow whatever advice is given, and I intend to step back from this article, even if it appears to be heading downhill, so that I don't tempt fate again. tedder (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)