Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Sater Design Collection

Hi, I authored this article in honor of a friend/mentor that attends my church. He happens to run a very successful company that has global clients and has been featured in tons of works. I did my best to be thorough, non-partisan, yet use the facts, and references that were actually available. I wish I had more links to works the company has been featured in online, however, most are real magazines and books without online links (are real references no longer valuable?). I did however find the ones I included, and referenced the real paper works where they are featured as well.

I understand the bit about external links, however, I did it in regards to offering the reader a link to the actual books that were published. What good is an encyclopedia when you can't get to more info on the subjects being talked about. This has actually been a downfall in my eyes with Wikipedia. There have been so many times that I want to go to an actual website of an artist, singer, etc and the only links there are in the article are back into Wikipedia. I also thought this helped establish notability.

I am not sure how you can in passing say that Sater Design doesn't have "notability." Having a huge part in the home design community and having created a publishing company, published dozens of books, and having thousands of subscribers to their quarterly magazine and having been awarded massive amounts of awards by their industry, and being featured by companies like HGTV, seems to me to be enough to establish notability. I have read way less notable articles about people and companies on Wikipedia.

I will remove them if that is what is needed to make it more encyclopedic, but please don't remove my work because "I work from home as a web designer." Does that mean I can't participate in contributing to Wikipedia? I truly felt his works were of enough notoriety to be in Wikipedia, otherwise I wouldn't have written it. He and his company have had a huge impact in the architectural home design community and should be recognized for it.

I will be the first to admit I am not a great writer, but I did my best to follow the guidelines to a tee. I added the external links for the reasons I mentioned above, and hadn't heard review about them until now, so I thought they must be legit. I have removed them in honor of following the Wikipedia communities' wishes. Let me know if there is anything specific I can do help it meet the standards. MicahR79 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. First, any comments about whether the article should be kept or deleted in a deletion discussion should probably be made on the AfD page - very few will check the AfD talk page. Second, please review the standards on notability, reliable and verifiable sources, and promotional material.  References need not be online to be used, but they must be verifiable (meaning that someone can verify what the print copy says).


 * By saying the article hasn't shown notability, all that is being said is that there are not sufficient references - note that blogs are not reliable, that publications that are affiliated with Sater are not reliable (including any industry group pubs where he is an officer of the group), etc. Refs need to be from independent sources such as newspapers, magazines, books, etc.  It also needs to read like an encyclopedia article and not a marketing tool.  Further, the article needs to address any negative items as well as the positive.  For example, any lawsuits against him (that can be sourced) should be in the article.


 * The comment as to your working at home as a web-designer is driven by a history of paid marketing editors that have come to Wikipedia to promote companies - as long as you edit to Wikipedia standards, there should not be a problem.  GregJackP   Boomer!   03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)