User:Lexein/Talk:Gizmo Logic Studios Inc.

=Archived discussion= '''This is an archive of an old discussion. Do not edit it! All edits will be reverted.''' --Lexein (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC) I had disputed the deletion of the page as all the content had been removed and added the tag hangon until I could replace the content. But in less than 30 minutes the page was flagged again for deletion before the content could be replaced.

--Scot Lemieux 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am disputing a tag has been placed on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gizmo_Logic_Studios_Inc. link Gizmo Logic Studios Inc.], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. I am requesting that the tag removed and the entry be restored so it can be completed.

There are similar contributions such as Pixar, Baby Einstein, and other studios that produce similar content as Gizmo Logic Studios Inc., although the company Gizmo Logic Studios Inc. is not as large or currently as worldly, I don't think that a status of a entry has to be as significant as those listed to be able to receive an entry. Gizmo Logic Studios Inc. produces products found in schools and libraries across Canada and is in retail chains such as companies listed above.

The company has entries and products listed on IMDB too.

Thanks in advance. --Scot Lemieux 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you mention it, Baby Einstein was first posted in 2004, more than six years after the founding of the company. By this example, Gizmo Logic Studios Inc. may someday merit a Wikipedia entry.--Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. See also What Wikipedia Is Not - WP:NOT
 * I'm writing this to address "it is an article about a company or corporation that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" and Scot's remarks above.
 * Note that anything you claim, we can check.
 * You claim "products": this company has only one product which it is marketing extremely aggressively. This, by itself, lowers its importance. ''plural vs singular was the point.
 * You claim "listings": this company has only one listing in IMDB. The product is a single bilingual DVD.
 * All the demo videos on the website are of the same product. This tends to make me believe no progress has been made on the other two "coming soon" products.
 * If the product was first of its kind, or best, or some other superlative, that would raise its importance. [Gizmo Logic Studios] does not mention that its products are the first Canadian-specific bilingual young-infant educational tool.  That increases importance a little.
 * The DVD does not seem to have been reviewed by any parenting or education-oriented magazines. Glowing extended reviews by many experts, publications, or peers would certainly raise significance.  Even a report of your own focus groups would help.
 * The website has no obvious reviews section at all. The unlinked reviews page isn't reachable from the home page, only by websearch: http://google.com/?q=baby+gizmo+parents+reviews (corrected below).
 * The "reviews" page says "Here's what some Canadian Government offices wrote about our DVD, Baby Gizmo™ in Canada." In fact, they wrote was "we acknowledge reciept of your letter and DVD". They didn't write "about the DVD" at all.
 * In the clickable media page we see a document called "Government Reviews". They're NOT.
 * Worse, the PDF document itself is named "baby_gizmo_government_testimonials.pdf". No testimonials exist, only receipts, two offers to evaluate, and a promise to show the DVD to two children. This is disingenuous, and lowers credibility.
 * The services page does not have a list of equipment, software or staff, or a list of happy clients, or a list of projects completed or contributed to. This lowers "relevance".
 * The about page does not have a list of contributions to the 3D Graphics community, nor a list of memberships in professional associations, nor articles written, or affiliations with national or local children's support organizations, or qualifications to write children's educational software.
 * You registered the domain baby-gizmo.com less than one month after the domain for mom-oriented baby products site babygizmo.com. The domain name is nearly identical, when it could have been differentiated. This seems deliberate, and a little creepy. irrelevant to WP policy.
 * You claim trademark of Baby Gizmo on the website, when according to Canadian first-use trademark law, the Baby Gizmo babygizmo.com would seem to have priority, but I am not a lawyer. irrelevant to significanceLexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Gizmo Logic Studios will likely rate it's own Wikipedia entry someday. Not yet.

--Lexein 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Many of the points above have to do with web presence only. Does significance only exist online?--Scot Lemieux 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, no. Wherever the significance of GLS exists, online or offline, it should be cited.  See Deletion_policy.  Advertising is a reason for deletion, where a company has made no other significant contributions. List those contributions, and the advertising charge may carry less weight.  I cannot emphasize this enough. --Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As for trademark, as you are not a lawyer and your comment about first use is inaccurate and should be removed. First use is not based on web presence the trademark issued in Canada and the US has a first use date which if you looked closed is about 5 months before web presence. Web presence is not required for trademark or copyright holders.  The internet is not a bench mark for first use with anything.  The ipod for example existed in trademark and copyright way before its web presence.--Scot Lemieux 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I unintentionally implied web use=first use. It's all irrelevant to significance for Wikipedia, and has been struckthrough. --Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The number of products out in market does not indicate signifigance. A company can produce one significant product, just because future titles are not released do not make them less significant.  Shrek 3 for example is not less significant because it is not in theaters today.--Scot Lemieux 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You claimed plural released products; I was addressing an apparent exaggeration. Wikipedia depends for its credibility on unequivocally truthful statements. In this Windows Longhorn world, "...future titles...not released..." are vaporware. --Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The products and the companies have had review in printed papers including Ottawa Citizen, Kanata EMC, Glengary News, Reflet de Prescott Russell and magazine publications in Calgary's Child and Homeschooling Horizons over the last six months. Not all printed publications are online, which we are all aware of. --Scot Lemieux 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On your website, it would help to publish excerpts from any and all study, analysis and reviews. In the WP article, the statement "The DVD has been mostly well reviewed" followed by a bunch of cites ( < / r e f > would support the article. --Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your belief that only one product exist is only your believe and is not based in any fact. Your belief does not construed fact and contains no merit for objection. --Scot Lemieux 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My "belief" (based solely on the website, and all available info on the WWW as of the date of my statements above), is that only one product has been released, and exists in the world outside GLS. --Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The administrator unfairly tagged and deleted this entry for speedy deletion when it did not meet that criteria. Only after objecting and requesting that the proper channel followed for deletion was I given a choice to correct or give defense to it's entry.--Scot Lemieux 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We're all editors - I'm not an administrator. I support defense and/or correction of your entry, and support the review process.  I did not delete your entry, nor mark it for speedy deletion, nor do I think it should have been deleted that fast, because I put significant effort and research into my comments. --Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some reviews published on the company website under testimonials by peers and customers []. The reviews are accessible from home page the link is at the bottom left of all pages under the review title (indicating another false belief of the administrator)--Scot Lemieux 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They are testimonials, and that's fine. A published review (radio, mag, paper, journal) will include the date, the publication name, author name. As for "...reviews are accessible" - well, that was my mistake.  My bad for not seeing it. --Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The company products are currently being reviewed by the Canadian toy testing council. --Scot Lemieux 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This fact, and excerpts from the results, belong in the website's reviews section.--Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The company is confirming that its products are the first Canadian-specific bilingual young-infant educational tool. Canadian laws require proof before a statement like that can be made. The company will not make a statement like that without research.--Scot Lemieux 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. --Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The company does projects with Tim Hortons Children's Foundation, Canadian Bar Association, Gymnastics Canada, Canadian Psychological Association, Vars Community Association, and South Osbourne Community Association, because these are not listed on the website along with equipment and software used does not take away from significance. There are many studio entries on Wikipedia that do not list any of these items listed above but still have an entry and have not been flagged for deletion.--Scot Lemieux 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. List those projects, and their nature, on the website somewhere - perhaps only in your personal CV if that's where they belong.  Supply relevant links to those orgs mentioning your work. The absence of details about Gizmo Studios definitely detract. --Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The administrator should have marked it for "deletion" if felt appropriate in the first place instead of "speedy deletion" with reasons and to indicate requirements under their opinion as a significant entry.--Scot Lemieux 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, except its not about "opinion" - it's about consensus-reached guidelines. As soon as the GLS article doesn't read like an advertisement, but like an encyclopedia entry with supporting citations from published sources, the marking for deletion will very likely stop. Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The entry will be improved over the next two days as I was not planning to defend the entry and will have more time over the next two days to improve it. --Scot Lemieux 18:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As I am relatively new to Wikipedia I am learning many things and was a little discouraged about the response from the entry in the form of deletion. I believe there is a Conflict of Interest in the fact I am the author of the entry on Wikipedia and the major share holder in the company, but the entry I created was based in facts and was not intended as self promoting and created the entry only after I felt it met criteria for entry. The intent is to start the entry and let it grow from there from other contributors. I think the creation of the entry in its current form is accurate, significant and because it sticks to the facts does not pass into the realm of serious conflict of interest. If the decision of the experienced closing admin is have the entry be removed I will be disappointed but will accept it.--Scot Lemieux 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As with all things Wikipedia, neutrality of tone and being supported by independant external sources are all important. To reduce the perception of advertising in your entry, add content addressing the rest of your company's contributions. There's nothing for other editors to contribute, since your company has little apparent history and little broad presence.  Your concern about conflict of interest is well founded.  I haven't found other companies' Wikipedia articles to be written by corporate officers. --Lexein 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)