User talk:Namsterdamus

Society of the Spectacle LLC
Press releases really aren't reliable sources and only further the impression the page is a marketing effort. As the stands the company doesn't seem to meet wikipedia's notability requirements either. --Blowdart | talk 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Society of the Spectacle LLC
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Society of the Spectacle LLC, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Fails WP:Note, couldn't find any reliable sources demonstrating any notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Blowdart | talk 22:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed retention of Society of the Spectacle LLC
Please make suggestions for the improvement of this entry. We have made additional citations to quotes from verifiable sources and believe our page now has more citations than more notable clothing companies that exist in WP. Please advise on how we can improve the quality of this resource.
 * Our page? I'd suggest reading WP:Own first. Are you from the company itself? --Blowdart | talk 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Own Comments on suggested readings
Yes I Namsterdamus am a representative of the company itself, thus the use of the words "Our" page is understandably inappropriate as was noted in the WP:Own, "I" do not own this article and it should be edited freely by the community at large. Thus when creating the page I attempted to be as objective as possible by writing in a objective manner by speaking only in terms of facts only to provide a basic foundation from which this can be improved. If that means a complete rewrite by others then I agree that is expected and thus the nature of WP. The article as in its current state is verifiable by the citations and the external links which provide convergent validity regarding the subject manner. I believe it needs to be confirmed by other editors thus links have been made available however for access to the complete articles, one must reference original printed materials.

Please provide the proper instruction for improving this article, else the suggested deletion is understandable.Namsterdamus (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK now we have conflict of interest issues. --Blowdart | talk 23:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely understood, thus to eliminate the conflict of interest issue, I do not make an argument to keep this article. I merely would like to know how it can be improved. If it needs to be reduced to geography for validating its existence with references to major publications then so be it and I would complete agree. Originally I had considered merely adding it to the original Society of the Spectacle article as an external link or even an additional section however, I chose not to do so because, though it is an undeniable fact that Society of the Spectacle the clothing manufacture exists and is referenced in the press. I did not want it to dilute the primary discussion relating to the primary article and was unsure if that was the appropriate place for it. At the same time Quicksliver the clothing brand is a valid result under the search for Quicksilver along with its other definitions and usages. Do you have any suggestions for a more appropriate path for entry such as an external link under the article for Society of the Spectacle or how can we achieve the same result that Quicksilver does for their company?Namsterdamus (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK so, first off other stuff exists isn't a valid argument for keeping an article. Secondly you're under the misunderstanding that Quicksilver wrote their article; it's unlikely that they did, rather it was created by someone outside the company. When a company creates their own article it's a reasonable indication that they're not notable; otherwise someone would have beaten them to it. You need to follow the guidelines for notability, or better yet hope that someone else does, because creating it yourself is highly suspect. So large media mentions (not just a two line mention or the reprint of a press release, or some celebrity waffling on in a reliable source about how much they like the stuff and how they would never wear anything else, that sort of thing. Or national/international awards one (and awards that people will have heard of at that). --Blowdart | talk 07:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you've take to discuss this, honestly at this point I'd agree to just delete it so i'll just wait for the inevitable. But for argument's sake I want to better understand what you mean by large media mention. I think that one quarter page editorial and a mention in a full page editorial in two leading industry papers is fairly reliable. Both California Apparel News and DNR are owned by Fairchild Publications and the Conde Nast family of papers placing them among the ranks of Vogue and Harper's Bazaar. In fact the California Apparel News article is a full editorial specifically about us which is pretty notable in my opinion. I still don't see which reprint of a press release you are mentioning so I assume thats just a general example not specific to this entry or any of it's cites. I just want to know for my own knowledge and I assume that after it's deleted I would have to just wait for someone else to add it in the future which hopefully by then they will probably just use the same articles again or new ones that are similar however if these are unqualified it would help me to know what types of media coverage I should be seeking. Are web articles more favorable than the press articles we provided because they are more readily verifiable? Please advise so I can have a better understanding of the process and the ideology of notability.Namsterdamus (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Society of the Spectacle LLC
Hello. I came upon the article Society of the Spectacle LLC and noticed it was up for proposed deletion. I saw the sources provided (they weren't quite formatted right to appear as references, but I fixed that); and to me, they appear to qualify as Reliable sources, so I have removed the proposed deletion template. This doesn't mean that the article won't be nominated at Articles for deletion, however; so if you can find more sources that meet RS, please consider doing so; and you might also be interested in the criteria for notability of organizations and companies which will help you in your attempt to make the article notable enough to avoid deletion. I hope the above links can help to further answer the questions you had above; if not, feel free to message me at my talk page and I'll attempt to answer any other questions. Raven1977 (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to correct the formating, I will read the criteria for notability of organizations and companies and see how this article can achieve greater notability but I understand that at this point it really is up to the public to begin adding to it.Namsterdamus (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I thought of another way you might be able to get some neutral parties in to help you edit this page, in order to avoid conflict of interest situation. If you have further information that needs added to the article, or further sources, you can post those on the talk page of the article and include the template found here: Template:Request_edit. There are editors who watch that category, and someone will hopefully see the information you've provided, and then add that information to the page for you, with properly neutral language. I hope that resource will prove to be of some assistance to you. Raven1977 (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Society of the Spectacle LLC for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Society of the Spectacle LLC is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Society of the Spectacle LLC until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 05:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)