Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado Dimensional Signs

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Dimensional Signs

edit
Colorado Dimensional Signs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable according to WP:Company. References do not prove ongoing notability. Content is mostly marketing. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have pared it down to its encyclopaedic content but it still fails to meet WP:Company. Author seems to be trying to make it into a mirror of their home page. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete undecided(formely was of the opinion delete) As it stands, I can't see any support for the company being unique. My opinion may might change if there was information to support the rarity of its techniques, but at the moment it sounds like marketing. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I made the original statement, the article has been tidied up (removing promotional material). I think information on signs is underrepresented on wikipedia, so dont want to remove just because I dont know much about it. That said, it would be good to have a few references for context of notability (ie if this technique is rare and unique in Australia, notability is probably there). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the artist becoming notable before the artform. Open to changing my mind when wikipedia has more info on signs (dimensional or othewise) to provide context for notability. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To my eyes the magazine cited IS American based with an address in Cincinnati, OH. Peridon (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per G11. "You wouldn't class the work of Colorado Dimensional as signage; 'works of art' is a far more fitting description..."; I'm glad they put in a link so that I can learn more about how Colorado Dimensional can work for me and grow my business, do they take Visa? If someone wants to make a bland encyclopedia article about a notable corporation, that's fine, but this is as close as one can get to "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; advertising, "referenced" only to coverage in trade publications with only limited circulation and interest, and won a non-notable award. I find myself wondering what a non-dimensional sign might look like. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pure weapons-grade Vanispamcruftisement. Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) 16:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RECONSIDER This page has now been cleaned up devoid of any marketing. It contains only verifiable fact. WP:Company states ""Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice." Colorado is one of only three creaters of this new signage to Australia. Their finished works have been published and recognised both Nationally and Internationally - judged against the best in the world. Consider the size of Australia is the same as the USA with only 1/10 the population shows a quite notable niche craftsmanship worthy of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimaki (talk • contribs) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Mimaki (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — Mimaki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The issue is that this kind of signage doesnt have a page on wikipedia, so its hard to see how someone who does it can be more notable than the artform itself. I'm still not convinced Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "They are one of only several signage companies....". Wow! I'm one of several multi-instrumentalists. I must be notable! (Sorry...) Apparently this type of sign is relatively new to Australia - although there must have been carvers of wood and producers of overlaid and jointed signage since the first commercial establishments were set up. I'm not at all sure as to the status conferred by winning the award - what are the criteria for taking part? I can't get into the Visual Impact link (not having Flash player), but a comment like that quoted makes me think they must have led very sheltered and excitement-free lives. OK, I live in the UK where signage of this sort is commonplace - the winning sign just looks like a pub sign to me. As a worker with flat print, I may be missing something of a technical nature here. Peridon (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: To Peridon: "Apparently this type of sign is relatively new to Australia - although there must have been carvers of wood and producers of overlaid and jointed signage since the first commercial establishments were set up". NO... CARVERS FOR THE FIRST COMMERCIAL SETUP WERE "IMPORTED" FROM THE US. THERE ARE NO AUSTRALIAN BORN CARVERS IN AUSTRALIA.

      "I'm not at all sure as to the status conferred by winning the award - what are the criteria for taking part?" BEING JUDGED VISUALLY, COMPLEXITY, DESIGN, AND APPLICATION OF MATERIALS USED AS - BETTER THAN ALL OTHER ENTRANTS.

      "I can't get into the Visual Impact link (not having Flash player), but a comment like that quoted makes me think they must have led very sheltered and excitement-free lives." UNECESSARY PERSONAL ATTACK BUT OK, WHAT EXCITES ONE DOES NOT EXCITE OTHERS. CARVED SIGNS EXCITES US."I live in the UK where signage of this sort is commonplace" LUCKY YOU- the winning sign just looks like a pub sign to me." EITHER YOU VISIT A LOT OF PUBS AND ARE IN A PLACE TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT - OR YOU HAVE NO ARTISTIC ABILITY OR YOU ARE DENYING THE TALENT OF THE JUDGES - WHICH ONE? "As a worker with flat print, AH... THERE'S THE ANSWER. YOU HAVE NEVER MADE ANYTHING THREE DIMENSIONAL AND HAVE NO IDEA OF THE ROTATION REQUIREMENT OF LOOKING AT SOMETHING FROM AN X, Y, AND Z AXIS. "I may be missing something of a technical nature here" OF COURSE YOU ARE THAT IS WHAT MAKES YOU TECHNICALLLY UNABLE TO MAKE COMMENT. Mimaki (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — Mimaki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Calm down, Mimaki. Stay cool and comment on the issues, not the editor. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with that sentiment entirely. I've gotten anonymous postings on my talk page with the same tone [1], and I think that other persons who have argued for a delete are getting the same. We tend to be a little more tolerant of this in new users, since being introduced to the Articles for Deletion forum can be a jarring experience, but criticism of an article is not the same as a "personal attack" against the author. Mandsford (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as stated earlier, you would expect an article about dimensional / carved signs before an article about a company that makes them. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colorado_Dimensional_Signs&oldid=1137725839"