Template:Did you know nominations/Styling Garage


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Styling Garage

 * ... that Styling Garage would have charged you the cost of your car to make the doors open in another direction?
 * Reviewed: Margaret O'Flynn

Created by Mr.choppers (talk). Self-nominated at 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough and long enough. The hook, though very interesting, gives me a little pause. The source is some sort of fan site, so I'm not sure about the reliability of it, while in terms of tone, the way it's written seems not quite encyclopedic. Let me try this... Raymie (t • c) 21:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that Styling Garage charged luxury car customers almost the cost of the vehicle to convert it to gull-wing doors?


 * Yes, sure, but the reason I wrote "another direction" is that it sounds strange and thus operates to hook the reader to make them click through. "Gullwing doors" kind of explains the whole thing, thus making it less likely to be clicked. As for the cost of the conversion, it is also listed in various old magazines, I reckoned a clickable source would be optimal (as fan-like as it may be). Should I add another source?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Mr.choppers, suspense doesn't really work like this in DYK; that's not what will make people click on--it's the ridiculous price tag. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg OK, I got a bigger problem with this--notability is based only on two articles in Der Spiegel. I am not sure this would pass AfD, and even if it would, we have such a huge amount of weak if not unreliable sources in the article that this is not, in my opinion, a good article to put on the front page. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, the website is not peer-reviewed - as I figured a clickable link would be best for the DYK process. To me a hook is something one uses to make a person want to click and read, from the DYK page: When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Suspense and price both help making it interesting. The sources are all good and I bridle at the intimation that they are unreliable - I have no interest in spreading falsehood. I will be happy to provide scans of the original articles if someone would like to see. Lastly, how is notability only based on the Der Spiegel articles? I provided at least ten sources, many period ones.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Mr.choppers, what we need is reliable sources, which should be independent of the subject. I can go through every single one of them, but not right now. What I can say is that besides Der Spiegel you have a one-page article from a French magazine that apparently verifies only that they made this one particular car, and one from a German magazine that apparently mentions their brake pads. I can't see those, but what they supposedly verify gives me little reason to think that those are in-depth discussions of the subject of the article. Besides that, there's catalogs, websites (1000SEL), and the company website. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I can help here. Der Spiegel certainly seem to have had a bee in their bonnet about this company: here's another article from 2005? (I can't examine it, they are objecting to my ad blocker). And maybe this fansite passes muster. It and a rather odd source ultimately deriving from Baron Thyssen-Bornemissza, which I have just added to the article, give a 2007 date for the company being finally wound up, so I've gone ahead and made that change. I'm sure there was in fact extensive news coverage back in the day, but Der Spiegel appears to have by far the best online archive, is all. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Brake pads? Are we looking at the same article? The printed sources are three issues of a German annual and one French, as well as an Indonesian source. They mention a variety of models, some specifications, and the royal customers of SGS, which imho help establish notability. At no point is there a discussion of brake pads - however, SGS became notorious for disconnecting ABS brakes on cars meant for the Arab world, and their successor company carried out a shooting brake version of the VW Corrado. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If they are so notorious, surely there's sourcing for that. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The situation and SGS' admissal are both sourced from Der Spiegel (Mist Gebaut, p. 90). I was just trying to figure out what you meant when you were talking about brake pads.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think notability can be in doubt. I'm seeing multiple substantial articles in English magazines, let alone German;
 * Popular Mechanics (1982)
 * Extraordinary Automobiles (1985)
 * Dream Cars (1989)
 * The Connoisseur (1985)
 * It looks to me as if they were being written about in RS throughout the 1980s at least, so whatever the problem is, it's not notability. SpinningSpark 22:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but for me the problem is notability. And whatever you can get out of those Google snippets (which were not supposed to use in article space), can you write a full-fledged article with it that you can put on the front page? The only one that we can see is the PM one, and that's not a substantial article nor does it give more than 2 1/2 sentences on the topic. Now y'all stop pinging me: I've said all I wanted to say on the topic. It might, might survive AfD, but it is not the kind of article that advertises all the good stuff we write on more obviously notable subjects. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg This is not the place to access notability. AfD is down the hall. Article is new enough, long enough, fully referenced. Hook fine. Image appropriate licensed. QPQ done. Move it on.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)