Talk:BMW Guggenheim Lab
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Epicgenius in topic re-addition of questionable contents
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
COI editing edit
The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation staff worked on this article initially, but I have checked it and revised it, and it looks neutral to me. Therefore, I have removed the COI tag. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
re-addition of questionable contents edit
@SchroCat:, There are many articles with a whole lot of totally unencyclopedic contents present. Things like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a justification for inclusion. The contents that are getting added back in Special:Diff/1132915274 isn't really encyclopedic and more of a name drop and not sourced to reliable sources and inclusion isn't WP:DUE. Per policy WP:ONUS, the burden to establish consensus is on those who wish to include it. WP:STATUS QUO is not a policy, it's an essay. Graywalls (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- The information has been there for a considerable time: it is best not edit warring to remove it, but to discuss whether to leave it in place or remove it. Leaving it in place or removing it should only be done by coming to a consensus through discussion, rather than edit warring. WP:Edit warring (including WP:AVOIDEDITWAR) and WP:CONSENSUS are also policies. I suggest you and Ssilvers discuss the matter and try to come to agreement. If you can't then there are other options (also a policy) available to settle it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SchroCat and Ssilvers:, As you're probably aware, there are quite a bit of articles with pure advertorial fluff that clearly fails inclusion criteria surviving over a decade in the main space, so the duration it has remained is not a good indicator of inclusion worthiness. The duration it has remained is not an automatic favor in keeping or else it would prevent the clean up of contents not appropriate for inclusion by having someone leveraging duration it has remained. Graywalls (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- The content you wish to discuss is central to this relatively short article about a project that was completed over a decade ago. The discussion of the BMW Guggenheim Lab's activities in each city where it operated briefly mentions the persons who were creating and curating its content and interacting with the public during the exhibition. Noting who they were and briefly what their background was is key to understanding the activities of the subject during the course of its activities. Including the names and occupations of the main operational people for each phase of the project that is the subject of the article is crucial to our readers' understanding of article. The fact that you have twice deleted sources describing the exhibition indicates that you have not read them or really understood what this article is about. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SchroCat and Ssilvers:, As you're probably aware, there are quite a bit of articles with pure advertorial fluff that clearly fails inclusion criteria surviving over a decade in the main space, so the duration it has remained is not a good indicator of inclusion worthiness. The duration it has remained is not an automatic favor in keeping or else it would prevent the clean up of contents not appropriate for inclusion by having someone leveraging duration it has remained. Graywalls (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- I just noticed this discussion. I agree with SchroCat and Ssilvers that the content in question should be included in the article. Mentioning who was part of the team seems like a reasonable thing to me, even if it's backed by a primary source (WP:ABOUTSELF specifically permits sources like this). I don't think a list of team members is an undue detail or "advertorial fluff" in an article like this, especially if one of the team members is himself notable. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)