Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sater Design Collection


 * 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 userfy. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Sater Design Collection

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Promotional. Would need a fundamental and total rewrite to be encyclopedic. Refs in article do not establish notability, being either a passing mention or promotional articles. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam. Amazing it's not been spotted before. Peridon (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would quote from the userpage of the article's author: "I now work from home doing graphic design, web design and online marketing". Interesting. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have found it either, but for an "other things exist" argument elsewhere.  GregJackP   Boomer!   15:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Guess where I found it? Peridon (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - please check the talkpage of this discussion for information posted by the article creator. I requested that he post any concerns to this discussion.   GregJackP   Boomer!   03:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - First of all forgive me for posting to the talk page, I thought that was the proper place for discussion. Greg thank you for you comments on how to make the article more encyclopedic.  I am a very positive person and tend to try and overlook any negatives, so I can understand how that might be perceived.  I will look into finding facts about the other side of the coin. I am not sure how I can make the sources more reliable other than scanning the sources in and making them available for the reader.  Would this be acceptable?  If so what would be the proper way to make them available to the user?  Would I post the pictures to the image section of wikipedia?  Or would I post them online, and link to them?  11:18am, 27 August 2012 (EST) MicahR79
 * Comment - I can support userfying the article so it can be worked on. Micah, this means it would be moved from article space to one of your user pages, where you could work on it until it was ready.  I would suggest going through the WP:AfC process, where experienced editors will review your work and offer suggestions.   GregJackP   Boomer!   17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Please don't post any scans of sources - that would come under copyright violation! You can't make a particular source 'more reliable' - whatever form it is in, it is either reliable and independent or it isn't. I've just looked at some of your refs. The builderonline ones don't appear to be real reviews of the company - more like showcasing designs or getting comments on someone else's work. Anything with 'blog' in it, even a .gov site, is not reliable. In the article, the quotes from Amazon etc are highly promotional and quite out of place in an encyclopaedia article. People often forget that this is an encyclopaedia, and not a directory or promotional place like AboutUs. I'm willing to move the article to userspace for reworking (by you...) if you think you can get rid of the WP:NPOV stuff, show that the subject meets WP:CORP, and get some refs that meet WP:RS. Pictures - if they are your images then they may be uploaded here or to Commons. This means that you license them under CC-BY-SA 3.0 meaning that they remain your copyright but they can be used anywhere by anyone. (Any company owned images must be released by the company themselves - you can't just upload them and say that it's OK.) Don't ask me how to do it - most others will be able to help there - but don't worry about it until the text is sorted. Peridon (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That sounds great. I tried my best when writing the article to comply, but obviously as a first article, an encyclopedic article, and a wiki, I was doing a lot of firsts.  I would love to have experienced editors/writers look at my work and help me create a truly valuable resource for the community.  As for the book descriptions I used those like the description of a tv episode.  I was thinking this is what the author is saying his book is about.  That might be promotional in some way, but almost anything that is said about someones company, band, tv show or anything creative that is a quote or written in positive light could be considered promotional couldn't it?  As for the refs, I guess what my question is how do I allow you or anyone else see a reference that is reliable that isn't electronic?  Obviously you don't have access to every tv show, newspaper and magazine made.  So how do I show a non-electronic but reliable source?  Thank you GregJackP and Peridon for you help. MicahR79
 * Just put it in the reference thingy in the same way. See WP:REF - there's a policy on almost everything if you can find it... Peridon (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note There is the section at the very bottom of the article called book/publication references. There are around 10 publications that have written about Sater Design.  Would that not show notability?  That is why I included those.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahR79 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If they are truly ABOUT the company, and not BY the company or just books of their designs, then they might be good. To be honest, I can't really see there being 10 reliable independent publications about a house design business, but if you let us know what they are, someone might be able to say yea or nay. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy as suggested. It's possible this article could prove to be a keeper, if Reliable Sources can be found and added. Most of what I found in a quick search was tons of mentions-cum-advertisements in Builder Magazine; we need something else, things written ABOUT him instead of BY him, but I think there may be more out there. For starters, find a source that proves he was the architect for Villa Ivrea. Trim the awards section to include only MAJOR awards (if any), with citations. Eliminate the promotional descriptions of the various publications; they should just be mentioned, not described. And delete the cutesie-folksy information about Dan Sater; this article is about his company, not about his volunteer activities and family. As suggested above, when you have a much shorter, properly referenced article, go to Articles for Creation and get it reviewed by an experienced editor before reposting it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2012 (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.