Talk:Amarillo Design Bureau

Untitled

I don't know where to start on this issue, but this is absurd. You should not start a project on a State Entity 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 14:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability tag

I don't think the notability of this subject is questionable, but the article needs to be expanded and references improved. Rray (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no references, so if it is notable, can you provide any evidence for this? I think that you may be mistaken in this instance, as

1. The article does not contain any content, context or analysis that asserts that the company has any notability;
2. There are no reliable secondary sources which would provide evidence of notability;
3. The company is a private company, has no listing on a public stock exchange;
4. The Star Fleet Universe games are not of its own creation; they licence this from Paramount Pictures corporation;
5. Lastly, they are not the first company to operate this franchise, as they are the successor company to Task Force Games.

I know that you must like these company very much, but their notability is in question, and your opinion alone does not override Wikipedia Guidelines. I shall be grateful if you would resotore the notability template until such time that real-world notability can be established. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't assume that you know anything at all about what I like or don't like. That's a condescending assumption about the reasoning behind my edit. Most of your enumerated comments above are irrelevant as well:

1. Context and analysis have nothing to do with notability. Those are content issues within the article.
2. Just because the article doesn't currently include reliable sources doesn't mean those sources don't exist.
3. Being a private company doesn't mean a company lacks notability. Some private companies are notable; some aren't.
4. Being a game manufacturer working on a licensed property doesn't mean a company lacks notability either.
5. Not being the first company to publish a particular game doesn't imply lack of notability either.

I agree that the article needs improvement and expansion. It's tagged as needing better references, and it's also tagged as a stub. I'll expand the article and add additional references when I have time. There is no deadline for article improvement. Rray (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

At least one of your statements, Gavin, is patently incorrect. The games have been designed and published by Task Force Games, and later by Amarillo Design Bureau (largely by Stephen Cole, one of the founders of both Task Force Games and Amarillo Design Bureau). The license from Paramount effectively lets them use the Star Trek setting for the games, but it's not as if Paramount developed the games and licensed them to these companies to market them. The Star Fleet Universe (with a capital "U") is essentially a creation that has been made for these games, and is based on, but distinct from, the "universe" that is portrayed in the Star Trek film and TV canon. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me some real-world evidence as to why this company is notable other than your opinion? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think he established notability, I do think he established importance or significance to the point that the page shouldn't be speedy deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out where WP:IMPORTANT or WP:SIGNIFICANT is deemed to trump WP:NOTABILITY? (Or where and how a mere editor can establish such a thing by mere assertion on a talk page.) I consider your removal of the DB-tag to be inappropriate. --Jack Merridew 12:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Read CSD A7. This is the minimum to allow a page to survive speedy deletion; it won't help a page at WP:AFD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Please note that I've since seen your edit summary where you stated that is was the article, not the above talk page post, that "establish[s] importance, but not notability" (not that I see it that way). --Jack Merridew 13:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have now been added, so I've removed both tags from the article. Rray (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the Notability Template relevant to this topic?

There is currently a debate as to whether the article about the company Amarillo Design Bureau meets the requirements of WP:CORP and whether or not it is appropriate to tag the article with the Notability template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just gave it look-see and it has not sources what-so-ever that serve to establish notability; I restored the tag. --Jack Merridew 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the link to BoardGameGeek should be removed per WP:SPS and {{Bgg publisher}} should probably go to TfD per same. --Jack Merridew 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't show notability in its current form. Hell, it doesn't even CLAIM it at the moment. Its just a list of all the stuff they've published. I've gone ahead and added a db tag. Hopefully the correct assertions will be made and it can be taken off in good faith.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 10:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, having an editing commnet of "listing off the crap they've made is not an assertion of notability" does not show interest in civil working with others. Yes, the article needs work to come up to standards, but it has survived an AfD once already. If you believe it needs to be removed from Wikipedia, initiate another AfD with your reasons without resorting to insulting comments. As it is, the db you put up is not a request for improvement of an article, but attempt to have it summarily deleted.--Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If my general reference of "crap" upset you, I'm sorry. My intention was not to imply a lack of quality, which in hindsight is how it likely appeared. Perhaps "things" or "stuff" would have been more appropriate. In any case, I do not believe randomly listing the various things they're made establishes any form of notability. There is no harm at all in listing a db tag on a page receiving this much attention since if anyone objects to it it will be removed easily enough, as it was here.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wow. The tags currently outweigh the article; a sure sign that there's something lacking in the article itself. --Jack Merridew 12:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is so much negativity about this article. It seems reasonable to include it in Wikipedia to me. It documents a company that produce a significant number of products in a narrow field. If you Google the company you can find that they do seem to be well known (in their field) and I have found a reasonable number of references that are independent and could be regarded as reasonable sources in that field. Matt Beard (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You might add them to the article. --Jack Merridew 13:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I notice that the company produces 5 games and 1 magazine that are themselves described by Wikipedia articles - doesn't this add to their notability? Matt Beard (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be a bit of circular logic. --Jack Merridew 13:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would be so only if those articles justified their subjects' notability on the ground of Amarillo Design Bureau's notability. As it is, at most it is a bit of WP:NOTINHERITED. Goochelaar (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be the same circular approach, only in the other direction. It doesn't work, excuse this, either way you spin it. I have not looked at those other wiki articles, but having related wiki articles does not - in any way - serve to establish notability. We use reliable sources (and wikipedia is not one). --Jack Merridew 13:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know anything about Amarillo Design Bureau, and I am not supporting this article nor its deletion. I was just pointing out that this would be a case of circular logic only if those other articles were based on the "authority" of this one.

As things stand, the logical structure is not: A.D.B. notable $\rightarrow$ those other articles notable $\rightarrow$ A.D.B. notable. It is instead: some more or less valid source $\rightarrow$ those other articles notable $\rightarrow$ A.D.B. notable. This has absolutely no logical problem (which does not mean that A.B.D. does not need independent sources, as WP policies require, of course). Goochelaar (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mebbe I'm missing something you're saying, but my point is that this article does not get a notability boost from wiki articles about their products (or products they sell under license) and it doesn't get any notability from sources in those articles. At best, some of those sources might be able to be used here, as well. I look at this as a spam problem, too; I've found and removed a number of e-store links offering to sell the items in question (WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided). --Jack Merridew 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we perfectly agree about the necessity of independent, reliable etc. sources. I was only making a point about logic terminology: a situation like X$\rightarrow$Y$\rightarrow$X, which is truly circular, is different from X$\rightarrow$Y$\rightarrow$Z, which is not circular, but may be unacceptable for other reasons. Sorry if I muddled things unnecessarily! Goochelaar (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I took it from your use of <math> tags that you might be on that track - then I looked at your user page. This is just a company from Texas selling intimacy-avoidance materials to Trekies. Cheers, --Jack Merridew 14:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"intimacy-avoidance materials to Trekies"? Are you trying to be insulting, or showing a simple disdain for people who enjoy other things? Lets keep this civil.--Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that is too harsh. The focus of the discussion is about the use of the template, so I would be grateful if you could stay on topic. Should it be there or not? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This company publishes several notable games. The notability of these products is not in question. We could certainly include all of the information here on each of those pages. It is relevant information. However, it makes more sense to centralize it here and wikilink it from each of those pages. I think that the effort to delete this page is misguided. -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The notability of its products have come under question (e.g Starline 2400) and found more than wanting justification for a stand alone article. But other than being a publisher, how is the company notable per se. Does it have any notability outside its product line? I see no evidence to this effect. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting point - does Sony have any notability outside its product line? Does BMW? How do you determine notability of an entity that creates notably products? Matt Beard (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Amarillo "Design", Sony and BMW are publically listed companies with a long history in design and product innovation. Amarillo by contrast is licenced to use the copyrighted material of Paramount Studios, and beyond that we know squat about them. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The main criterion for notability is coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. The article includes multiple reliable secondary sources now. Saying that we know squat about the company is overstating the case a bit. We know specifically which games the company produces based on the licensed materials, as well as how owns the company. Information about products that a company produces is generally important to the understanding of the company, which is the whole point of an encyclopedia article.

At this point the discussion of whether or not the notability tag is appropriate for this article seems moot. Rray (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken, the sources fail WP:RS and furthermore they refer to its products, not the company itself. I think you may be deluding yourself into the belief that these "sources" are evidence of notability. The first source cites Stephen V. Cole who is the CEO of the company: how on earth can you say that an interview from an officer of the company is a reliable secondary source? --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be confused about sources. Stephen V. Cole isn't the source just because he's the subject of the interview. The article in Pyramid magazine is the source. If the source were from a self-published book by the CEO, or from the CEO's personal blog, that would be different. But Pyramid magazine is a legitimate secondary source. BTW, surely you can find a more civil way of disagreeing with someone than calling them "deluded"? Rray (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Um, how about merging Stephen V. Cole to this page and calling it notable enough? Is that a fair compromise? AnteaterZot (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that a merge should be done just because there's a disagreement about notability on this article. At this point, reliable sources have been added to this article, so it seems as if the problem's been solved. (A single dissenter thinks that the sources don't constitute notability.) But if a merge makes sense for other reasons, then go for it. Since he was also cofounder of Task Force Games, it might or might not make sense to merge all three articles into this one. Rray (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I would be delighted if all three were merged. Founder, company, successor company; it makes sense. This article might have been sourced, but the others are still weak. Just take my suggestion under consideration, that's all I ask. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't have any objection to it at all. Rray (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
        • A triple merger would make sense to me. Keep this article as the core, since it is the current company name, but the other two give it history.--Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• This would definetly be an improvement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)