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 no consensus, default to keep. Neıl ☎ 09:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SmashLAB[edit]

This company does not appear to be more notable than any other design firm which is not allowed to have a page here. No references other than those coming from the company itself. As such, this fails WP:CORP. Delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD also includes Design Can Change, a project of this company. If consensus is to delete, the deleting admin should check links to the article, since there are a few redirects. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Company spam that is just a way of getting links to their page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep design can change - notability seems to be established. There are other independent sources as well, not all blogs. SmashLAB, the firm that created it, is of questionable notability except for having created design can cahnge unless some real sources can be found. I toned down the worst of the promotional side by removing the portfolio and moving the lists to the talk page. Consider merging the two articles. Wikidemo (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - notability is established within the international design community including Icograda, their work has been published in nearly a dozen books, and they've been invited by the AIGA to speak at conferences. International publications have been sourced in the updates to the page. Petiep (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's only edits are to these two articles and Sustainable graphic design, a closely related article also created by him. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK delete - if WP:V can be satisfied, then I can be swayd to keep, but as it stands now, the 4 unverifiable References given are nearly useless. A company as Notable as this should be able to come up with Verifiable References to proove it belongs. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep - WP:V satisfied (barely, and some of thoes seem almost Primary Sourced). Petiep, Please read and understand the spirit of: WP:COI & WP:RS. My best suggestion would be not to try making an Advert. If the company is truely notable, then an Article will be made about it by Editors at large. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable company and the article reads like an ad. Design Can Change could potentially be notable, but it also reads like an ad and the only references are ads for it and blog posts so it fails WP:RS and WP:N. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:RS and WP:V, I've provided "verifiable references" from printed publications, but I suppose Exit2DOS2000's issue is that they are not verifiable online. Thankfully, I've found 3 of the 4 articles cited reprinted online and have updated the article with links to them. These sources are well-regarded international publications which satisfies WP:N. I can provide many more references if required, but have just selected the MOST notable.

- "...the only references are ads for it and blog posts so it fails" - Nick Dowling. If you have checked the references in the references section you will know that this statement is untrue.

- If you have any other concerns or suggestions, I'd much appreciate them. Thanks. - Petiep (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references that are available online offer such brief coverage that they don't provide enough material to write an article from. (Usually we prefer to summarize what others have written about the article subject, rather than rely exclusively on material created by the subject. The information on awards, while useful, is fragmentary and can't be used to tell a story). The agency is mentioned in one case as winning an award for an advertising entry along with what seems to be 50-100 other winners. Elsewhere their devotion to reducing the environmental impact of their work is praised as being a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.