Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art of Memory (company)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Art of Memory (company)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Organization fails to meet notability requirements as per WP:COMPANY. Details provided here. Picatrix (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

*delete Seems to me from the article that it's "The Story of Glass" (which doesn't seem to have an article) which is notable, not the company that made it. And I'm not sure they were 'pioneering' in the use of CD-ROM and kiosks. Someone has collected a huge archive of references to kiosk development (unfortunately it's on a blacklisted server, but is not itself spam. Maybe a list of old spams.  Can I post it not as a link or will I still get pulled up for spam?) and these guys don't seem to figure on it--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC) *Keep:  article seems fine now.  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * keep I've added references from several independent, reliable sources to Art of Memory and its works. Seems to meet WP:COMPANY now. Cantingle (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The references provided in the article contain no link to their corresponding web pages, so it is difficult to verify the depth of coverage about this company. I found links for the first two references, and neither are sufficient. The first source and the second source don't even mention this company. As a result, I didn't even bother to check the other sources. I did a Google News Archive search but have been unable to find reliable sources. If Cantingle lists which sources s/he thinks prove this company pass WP:COMPANY, I would recommend that they link to those sources here. Then, I might reconsider my vote. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for Wikipedia sources to be online. To quote Wikipedia's policy on verifiablity: "The most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.". Many such sources are not available online either because they are subscription journals, professional books or because they were published before the web became a mainstream publication media. And with respect, Art of Memory is mentioned in both the sources that you quote - just not in the abstracts available online. Cantingle (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Cantingle here. If he/she has found non-online sources, then they are still good - and good on Cantingle for looking them up.  If you don't believe the sources, go check it out at a library.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with both of you. Sources don't need to be online, but in this case, they are. As I said above, the two I found didn't even mention this company. Even though those sources were abstracts, this poses serious problems with verifiability and causes me to question the validity of the other sources. These sources likely mention Art of Memory in passing, since the company name isn't used in the first 500 words. Cantingle, please cite which sources you believe that allow this company to pass the notability guidelines; then quote the information that is hidden behind the pay walls, so that I can see the depth of coverage of this company. Cunard (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With the greatest respect, you can't see the sources online, just the abstracts. That is not an indication that the source does not meet the criteria.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By only seeing the abstracts, I cannot verify whether or not the sources even mention the subject. The lack of online sources is indicative that this company is non-notable. The article isn't about an obscure topic, such as a politician in Somalia; it is about a company in the UK, where there is great Internet presence. Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia. Again, I request that Cantingle choose four of the sources that s/he has cited in the article and quote the paragraph(s) that mention the Art of Memory Company. Without knowing the context of those articles, for all I know, Art of Memory may be mentioned only once in an article about a different topic. Cunard (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC
 * Oh dear. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming bad faith. I just want to know how much coverage this company has really received. Cunard (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to know how much coverage they've actually received, turn off your computer, get off your ass and find out. Where did this ridiculous idea come from that that verifiable means "hyperlinked"? There's a lot of information on the Internets, but it turns out that before the Internet, people still published information, except that it was on paper! Weird, I know. Anyway, there are these places called libraries, and if you go there, you can verify all sorts of things you can't verify from your computer. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm amuses me and your point is taken, but I don't have the time to research all those sources at the library. In fact, my local library is so small that it doesn't have any of those journals. My only request is for to quote the relevant information in the sources. That isn't an unreasonable request, is it? Once Cantingle has done that, I will be able to evaluate whether or not the company has received enough coverage to pass WP:CORP and hopefully change my vote to keep. Cunard (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an unreasonable request; it just frustrates me when editors !vote to delete an article as unverifiable because they haven't personally verified the article. I appreciate you taking my sarcasm lightly, because I really don't mean to be a dick, but I don't understand why you're so heavily involved in this discussion when you don't have the time or resources or gumption to actually find out whether this article actually should be deleted. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that folks can become annoyed when editors vote to delete an article when they haven't first personally attempted to confirm the sources that are associated with it. However, I nominated the article for deletion after checking the available references (see the talk page for the article). I discussed why at length on the talk page (and received no response). I have already addressed the previous citations. As for the new ones, If Cantingle has access to the sources (and presumably he or she does, else how did these latest references materialize?) then why not simply indicate to us what they say? I'm all for assuming good faith, but why assume it when unquestionably establishing it (and, happily, any putative notability) is as easy as posting excerpts and summaries from the citations mentioned? As a matter of fact, when I post citations I provide excerpts for purposes of discussion. Is there some particular reason why bald citations without excerpts are being provided in this case? At any rate, when it comes to "getting off one's ass" one can quite reasonably ask people with access to citations to provide excerpts. When all the sources I can verify mention the company or one of its products in passing, it seems sensible to dig deeper when new ones are provided. If Cantingle really is interested in keeping the article why not post appropriate excerpts from the citations together with the publication information in the notes? Simply sticking citations on an article means nothing in itself; the citations provided should establish notability. How are these citations relevant to establishing notability? According to WP:COMPANY "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." None of these articles appear to be about "Art of Memory (company)". As best I am able to tell the new sources are no less anemic (as far as establishing notability goes) than the previously provided ones. Finally, I don't want to waste my time or anyone else's. If those citations establish notability then we can keep the article and go back to working on more important things. Hence, I ask Cantingle: please post illustrative excerpts. If Cantingle is unwilling to do so, can somebody else? If not, can we extend this review so that I have time to dig them all out one by one and to address them? --Picatrix (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Brief version: the new citations provided by Cantingle might be from reliable, independent sources. But the rest of the sentence that mandates the use of reliable, independent sources also specifies that the organization should have been the subject of significant coverage. It also specifies that trivial or incidental coverage is not sufficient. The interested editor will, I hope, note that "Art of Memory (company)" is not the subject of a single one of these articles. Of all the ones that I have been able to verify the 'coverage' is decidedly incidental at a best. Significant coverage, by any reasonable standard, would appear to involve at least one headline or article entirely devoted to the subject... Cantingle's edit summary specifies thing like "Reference to a review of their first CD-ROM" and "Add Reference to Chinese Ceramics". These summaries indicate that these references are to the products the company is responsible for. Again, these are in fact trivial or incidental references to the company's products, not the company itself. --Picatrix (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you researching all those sources. My suspicions about the validity of the sources are confirmed, so my delete vote remains. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * According to WP:NOTABILITY "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" The subject of this article is "Art of Memory (company)".


 * Each of the sources indicated are used to reference the fact that the company has produced products. None of the sources are about the company. These are citations which support statements about products the company has produced NOT about the company. They do not establish notability as per WP:COMPANY or WP:NOTABILITY. This is apparent if they are reviewed one by one:


 * Kahn, David (May 1994). "Shakespeare's Twelfth Night or What You Will. (E-book Review)". Theatre Journal (Johns Hopkins University Press).


 * From the information available online this appears to be a review of a CD ROM 'directed' by Graham Howard, one of the individuals associated with "Art of Memory (Company)". This is clearly a reference to a product produced by the company. This press is not 'about' the company, and hence does not constitute non-trivial, non-incidental coverage of the company.


 * Nonnecke, Blair; Jacques Richard; McKerlie Diane and Preece Jenny (1995). "Video-based hypermedia: guiding design with users' questions". New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia (Taylor & Francis) 1 (1): 185-187.


 * As I have already pointed out, this article is about "Video-based hypermedia" and therefore is not an article about the company in question. Again we have here an incidental reference (if that, as I cannot verify the content beyond the summary provided).


 * Dexter Lord, Gail (1997). "Visible storage at the Glass Gallery of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London". The manual of museum management (Rowman Altamira): 137. ISBN 075910249X.


 * This title is available through Google books, but the page on which the content appears is restricted for preview viewing. But it is clear that this is a book about contemporary strategies in museum management. Here we see that incidental reference is made in the manual to the company, and it is overwhelmingly likely that this reference is made in the context of brief mention of a product for which they are responsible (if the company, rather than the product, is mentioned at all...).


 * Watson, Oliver (1997). "The Story of Glass". Computers and the history of art (Routledge) 7. ISBN 9789057550447


 * As I have already pointed out, this article, is not about "Art of Memory" (the company) either. It is again about the product, "The Story of Glass". Furthermore, this article was written by "Oliver Watson, the curator of Ceramics & Glass" at the V&A, under whose supervision the "interactive media product" was created. This would appear to call into question the independence of this secondary source.


 * Bernier, Roxane (2003). USABILITY OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTERS IN EXHIBITIONS: DESIGNING KNOWLEDGEABLE INFORMATION FOR VISITORS. 28. p. 245 - 272.


 * Given the title and abstract it seems that this article is also not about the company, nor is it about one of its products (though it seems likely a product is mentioned briefly). This is a particularly misleading citation because it shows the page numbers for the entire article which appears in a journal (pp 245-272), yet the entire article is not about the company. Here again an incidental mention in a highly-specialized journal.


 * Beecham, Sarah; Howard, Graham (2006). "The Story Of Glass: Still Really Working 10 Years On" in Museums and the web 2006. Museums and the Web 2006: Proceedings.


 * As I have already mentioned, this source is not acceptable as a way of establishing notability. This material was produced by two of the people working in the company: Graham Howard and Sarah Beecham (the former noted in this article as a founder, the latter indicated here [] as the Director of "Art of Memory" (the company)). As specified at WP:COMPANY "Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people." are not acceptable as secondary sources. Also, as stated "Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." [emphasis added]


 * Crawford, Alan (January 2006). "A new Arts and Crafts Museum". Apollo Magazine.


 * The full paragraph that includes mention of the company in this source is as follows:


 * "Most museum displays consist of objects from their own collections. But the Trust cannot furnish this exhibition from its own collections and hope to do justice to the story. So the permanent exhibition at Court Barn will consist, probably for some years, partly of objects owned by the Trust and partly of loans from other museums and private owners (Fig. 7). In this connection, and in many other ways, Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum, with its fine Arts and Crafts collections, has been unfailingly helpful. The exhibition is being designed by Gareth Hoskins Architects, a young, award-winning, Glasgow firm who were responsible for the new Architecture Gallery at the V&A, and have recently been appointed to carry out a multi-million-pound scheme at the Royal Scottish Museum in Chambers Street, Edinburgh. Court Barn may seem like small beer for this team, but they like the feel of the project. Digital collections-management is being designed by System Simulation, and the interactives and website will be by Art of Memory, based in Campden."


 * The last sentence of this paragraph is an exemplary instance of incidental mention.


 * "Chinese ceramics". Design Week. 15 November 2001


 * This source is only available to online subscribers. I do not have access to it, but given the title of the article it seems likely that it will include a mention of the fact that the company produced a kiosk system for the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art.


 * There is no doubt that this company exists, and that it has produced interactive materials in a niche market, and that passing or incidental mention of the work they have produced has made it into specialized publications. It seems entirely clear to me that this company does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. Once again, from WP:NOTABILITY ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". And yet here NOT ONE of the sources mentioned address the subject directly or in detail. Instead we have a (small) collection of incidental references to products or projects the company has worked on. These citations support statements about products or projects. Many editors working here could produce dozens of similar incidental references to work they have done that have appeared in trade-specific publications (I know I can), but that would not establish their notability, nor would it justify their creation of a Wikipedia article about themselves. How is this any different? --Picatrix (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (Just to be clear about my position.) --Picatrix (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Picatrix (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —Picatrix (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Posting citations in support of individual sentences such as "Art of Memory has produced work for System Simulation Ltd including the gallery kiosk system at the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art." is not the same thing as posting citations that establish notability.

Wikipedia's notability guidelines are particularly important in the case of articles about business entities providing commercial services, especially when the articles associated with these companies are basically a list of products they have created together with a link to the company website, as is the case here.

According to WP:SPAM "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website." and "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." [emphasis added] ' --Picatrix (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: I've relisted this AfD because it needs to have more discussion. and I believe that this article should be deleted because we believe this company is non-notable and has not received significant coverage.  and  believe that the article should be retained because they believe that the article has adequate sourcing. In their comments above, Picatrix has clearly shown why every single one of the offline references in the article is inadequate. Those sources are all passing mentions of the company, and some are not secondary. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - non notable company.    7   talk   07:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not Notable, insufficient viable sources. insufficient detail  Rmzadeh  ►  08:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - per quote from WP:COMPANY: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy", and the following observation: That the product is notable has both been asserted by the article and backed by the references. A separate article on the product ("The Story of Glass") is not feasible considering the quote from the policy above. So the only solution is to keep the company article, as the policy does not cover the possibility of a non-notable company producing a notable product. But pls correct me if I'm wrong. --Pgallert (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thanks for sharing your opinion. However, I take issue with the putative logic here. By this reasoning, discussion of notable films (i.e. "products") should be restricted exclusively to articles devoted to production companies tasked with creating them. By this reasoning, notable novels should be discussed only in articles devoted to their respective publishing houses. This would of course be ridiculous. As a matter of fact articles devoted to films and books sometimes indicate the name of the publisher or production company that created them. "[T]he only solution..."? There are many options here. One would be to do as you suggest, and allow this transparent ploy for increasing search engine visibility for a commercial company (and it's website) to remain right where it is. Another would be to delete it and discuss the company's products on an appropriate page or in an appropriate section: Interactive kiosk, Installation art, and Museum all come to mind. "The Story of Glass" might well satisfy the criteria for notability. The information on interactive museum installations provided here in brief as a tarted-up promotional piece might well have value if delivered in context, compared with other examples. It would be worth writing an article on precisely that, and the folks at "Art of Memory (company)" could probably do a good job contributing to it, as they at least grasp one fundamental contemporary application of an ancient art most people have forgotten. But this article is at present a tool for improving search engine ranking, rather than a useful, non-trivial contribution to human knowledge. appeared out of nowhere when I first nominated this article for deletion, complete with references that supposedly support 'notability' (but that he or she is not actually willing to share). I'd say that this sudden arrival on the scene is perfectly timed for the creation of a new article on interactive museum exhibitions (certainly notable in and of themselves), in which "The Story of Glass" could receive precisely the brief mention it deserves. But the idea that this company deserves an article of its own in a modern encyclopedia, in the absence of any significant coverage addressing it directly and in detail cannot reasonably be supported. --Picatrix (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! What do you do when something really pisses you off? Don't you think this is getting a little needlessly messianic?Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not pissed off at all, but if I were, and if I had chosen the name of a (Welsh) saint as my username I wouldn't be calling other people "messianic" for making constructive suggestions. Chipping Campden, where the company is located, is quite close to Wales isn't it? In any case we have here an instance of what I call a "suckerfish" (i.e. Remora) scam. The suckerfish ploy is a common branding strategy whereby a company chooses the name of a known entity or phenomenon and takes over the name in order to have access to immediate "brand equity" (e.g. Fort Knox gun safes, named after Ft. Knox and hence associated with security). It's what happened here with the article "Art of Memory (company)" which used to be the "Art of memory" article (a genuine and notable historical phenomenon). Now whenever a Wikipedia reader goes looking for "Art of Memory" they are likely to pull up this little shill article, which has fastened itself to the underbelly of a real encyclopedic topic. Assuming good faith is not the same thing as ignoring bad faith. I dislike spending time on AfD (a first for me, by the way). I prefer to work on articles and avoid this administrative drag. But I dislike seeing the blatant suckerfish hanging there even more. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you address any future personal comments similar to the one above to my talk page. Thanks.--Picatrix (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Commenting the comment: I don't participate in AfD's frequently, either, but I do it often enough to remember that analogies are typically not the best way to argue here, and neither are arguments ad hominem. I see no point in outlining why the article has been created or by whom. Having said that, I found my logic quite standard - The policy says the product should be covered under the company. The installation is a product of the company. Therefore, the installation should be covered under the company. That's a syllogism, and I'm afraid I cannot make it clearer than that. Your claim that the company is the producer of the installation only as much as a copy shop is the producer of literature would of course invalidate my argument - but can you back that up with facts? As for the merging options: your verdict was "delete", that means "nothing salvageable in this article". If it can be merged, go ahead. --Pgallert (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem arguments are generally considered to be those made against a person. In this case I have not attacked a person rather than addressing the substance of the main line of argument. Instead, I have used the attested actions and relationships of the editor responsible for creating the article as an illustration intended to show that this non-notable content is more likely than not spam. As you appear to favor a reasoned approach with structure I provide you with the following:


 * 1. We are discussing a Wikipedia article about a multimedia company for which secondary sources establishing notability are wanting. You yourself have indicated that you feel the company itself is non-notable ("policy does not cover the possibility of a non-notable company producing a notable product").


 * 2. An article for a non-notable company which includes a link to the company's commercial website and a few non-informative PR factoids is likely to be spam. Spam is unwelcome here.


 * 3. Notability determines whether or not the article stays, goes or is modified. The spam issue determines how it stays, goes or is modified.


 * The discussion here is foremost about notability, and secondarily about spam. In many cases where spam is present, it is simple enough to remove the particular spam content. In this case we are dealing with an entire article which serves as search engine ranking spam, and as a "suckerfish". In such a case the notability and the spam issue become intertwined. Spam of whatever variety is advertising. And Wiki policy regarding advertising is as follows: "Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy."


 * I would submit to you that Wikipedia policy does not explicitly cover non-notable companies creating notable content because the solution is refreshingly simple: move the information about the notable product to an appropriate article or section, such as the ones dealing with exhibitions and installations I mentioned above. Precisely the same section about products and services being included in the articles about the company itself that you enjoy leaning so heavily upon notes: "If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article. If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services." You will note, I trust, that here there is no mandate that the content go into an article about the company, only that it be included in an article that deals with "all the company's products and services". Articles about museum installations, interactive exhibitions or multimedia in general would seem to conform to this guideline.


 * To be precise I claimed that a company producing installations is analogous to a publisher producing books or a production company producing films. I said nothing about a copy shop my friend, and I suspect that any reasonable reader would find my analogy to be useful and accurate. Analogies can be quite useful, and I stand by the one I have presented in this case. Multimedia projects, like films, go through planning, production and post-production phases, often involve identical stages (e.g. storyboards, VO, animation, green screen, compression, etc.) and are in the end distributed as digital media.


 * You, on the other hand, based on a selective and partial interpretation of one guideline, suggest that one of this company's particular products (the only one with multiple citations is "The Story of Glass") is sufficient to establish the article about the company as worthwhile content that should be included in Wikipedia, problems with notability and spam notwithstanding. This sounds rather circular, and an argument for a kind of 'statutory notability' ex nihilo is as amusing as it is surprising coming from someone who favors terms like "syllogism" and "ad hominem".


 * As for merging content vs. deletion I stand by the vote for deletion. I'm not going to go to the trouble of taking these citations and using them to generate encyclopedic content, followed by the work involved in incorporating it into an existing article or creating an appropriate one. It is important to note that there is currently no content that would be worth incorporating into any other article. The material currently on the page reads like a PR bullet list. I have simply stated that if there are editors who feel strongly that removing a spam article with a couple of short sentences about museum installations will lead to a gaping hole appearing in the edifice of human knowledge, they can address this potential problem by adding mention of these installations in an appropriate article or section. However, at the moment we have only citations that would support the creation of such content. It's not there on the page now.--Picatrix (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Before I finally walk away from this conversation - I trust we both have made our points clear at this time - let me mention that
 * The paragraph you quote from the policy directly follows the paragraph I quote. This indicates to me that my quote describes the general rule whereas your quote describes cases where the general rule does not apply. For if that wasn't so, the policy would be contradictory which someone else would have spotted before we do.
 * A remark like " appeared out of nowhere when I first nominated [...]" (author's emphasis) is a fine example of an ad hominem argument, even if your implicit accusation of puppetry was true.
 * The producer/creator/maker of a book is its author, and not its publisher, because in the case of a book it touches intellectual achievement more than material one. An arts installation likewise is an intellectual product rather than a material one. That's why I claim your analogies are lame, and that's why I put another lame analogy (the copy shop) to illustrate my point.
 * And finally, deletion discussions like this one cover whether the article asserts notability, and whether or not the sources back this assertion, common viewpoints like "Subject not notable" notwithstanding. Now this article asserts notability via one of the company products, and that is why we should discuss the notability of the product rather than that of the company - But this might well be my minority view of how to interpret the WP:N policy.
 * --Pgallert (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC), inviting further philosophical discussions on my talk page.


 * Thanks for sharing these details. As you address points pertinent to the AfD discussion I'll respond here, rather than on your talk page.


 * The paragraph I quote does immediately follow the one you quoted. If you here have recourse to the argument that generalities trump particulars, I direct your attention to the over-arching Wikipedia policy regarding notability, which would certainly trump the specific instructions you believe apply in this case. The guiding general notability policy would seem to be of more importance than the particular guideline that products should, if possible, be discussed within the articles relating to the companies that produced them. My own opinion is that a notable product (if indeed it is notable) deserves its own article, in which case the main notability guidelines are adhered to (i.e. non-notable content does not creep in under cover of notable content). If instead, in this specific instance, we follow the guideline that products should be discussed in articles related to companies that produced them, and attempt to 'transfer' notability in this fashion, we still end up with an article devoted to a non-notable company. In one case we don't have a problem with non-notable content in the encyclopedia. In the other, we do.


 * The remark about Cantingle was not intended as an argument for deleting the article, and hence is not an ad hominem argument. I simply observed that this fortuitous and unexpected arrival was perhaps a sign from the heavens that the time had come to create an article that usefully addresses interactive museum installations, in which "The Story of Glass" could perhaps receive mention. I believe that this is clear from the sentence immediately following the one you reference. While there is an implicit suggestion that something might be odd about this sudden appearance and defense of a non-notable article, the point was not to make an ad hominem attack, but rather to suggest that someone with a spontaneous impulse to defend (what I feel is) a crass PR piece must care about interactive museum installations quite a bit, and so might instead devote their attention to writing an article that could be useful and informative, and which could contain the potentially notable content. Then we could actually say "good on Cantingle" without it sounding like a shill quip. In the end the products in question could be mentioned in a context that means something, and, more importantly, the article would not be a waste of the general reader's time. Cheers! --Picatrix (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It seems to me that the only credible assertions of notability come from the single software product. Common sense dictates then that company information would be mentioned on a product article, not rather than transfer the notability to the company when there is not really much else to write an article about. Dominic·t 11:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I genuinely hesitate to say anything more here, for fear of triggering another of Picatrix's rants.  However, the fact remains (accusations of COI, sockpuppetry and Welshness aside - I'm from Yorkshire BTW) that The Story of Glass has genuine notability as a topic (in addition to references previously given, Coverage in international museums conference in 2006 - 10 yrs after launch.  The Story of Glass at the V&A covered in FUTURES PAST. Thirty Years of Arts Computing CHArt YEARBOOK 2006 COMPUTERS AND THE HISTORY OF ART VOLUME 2 (CHart)).  It is therefore not true that there is no notable info in this article.  The issue is whether the company's products (particularly the Story of Glass) can and should be referred to in their own article rather than an article about the company, as opined by Pgallert Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.