Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Design classic

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. DavidShankBone's idea to create an article on Phaidon Press' design classics may be a good one, but since this article wasn't created from that, it wouldn't be a good starting point. I'm willing to userfy if anyone wants a copy to make the new article, but I think starting from scratch might be better. Mangojuice^talk 20:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design classic

Yet another list with a hopelessly POV title. Now I know people will argue that the entries are actually referenced. Note however that there are essentially two sources, which makes the article a simple reflection of what those two sources deemed for whatever reason to be classics. The introductory sentence is trying hard to make it sound like a worthy topic but it's clear that this is deemed to remain OR. Pascal.Tesson 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm undecided at this point, but the term "Design Classic" appears to be a neologism ripped from "Phaidon Design Classics". From the talk page it appears this originated as an attempt to reprint the Phaidon Design Classics list here, which in my opinion is a completely unacceptable concept. Still, there are other entries in this list that have different sources, but most of this list is completely unsourced and I think the criteria is weak and arbitrary. If kept, at minimum it needs a move to a better namespace and some good hard editing and sourcing. Still, I'm not convinced it's worth salvaging even then...--Isotope23 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, an article on "Best quarterbacks" or "Most amazing buildings in the world!" or something like that wouldn't stand a chance and I don't see how this is any different. The sourced info would be more than welcome at some of the individual articles though, I'm sure. If it needs to be userfied to do that, I'll gladly take custody of it. Recury 16:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment see also the recent debates on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous hotels and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous villas. Both turned out to be deleted by an overwhelming consensus. Pascal.Tesson 17:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Items just years old hardly classify as "classic". Spam magnet, marketese. Pavel Vozenilek 20:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think delete is merited, but *only* if Phaidon is not seen as a source that is worthy of being used as a primary expert reference. For instance, if someone put up a "List of Time Magazine's Person of the Year" (preferrably with a small descriptive paragraph for the reason under each entry), it would be totally merited. So is this more accurately a list of "Phaidon's Design Classics"? If they hold weight, and it is notable that when they deem something a design classic (like Time with its person of the year) then it is wholly merited as an entry. --DavidShankBone 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I change my vote - DO NOT DELETE but move to "List of Phaidon Press's Design Classics". If you want to delete this entry, you should also elect the Time Person of the Year entry. Phaidon Press holds weight. KEEP --DavidShankBone 18:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Peta 05:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If its being kept, it requires some heavy editing and citations. Ought to be renamed- "design classics" is too open to POV and bias. No parameters for evealuating if a product is a "classic" or not Amsi 08:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep In response to the article's title being taken from Phaidon's Design Classic this isn't so. The article was created in 2002 (not by me) but Phaidon's book wasn't published until April 2006. The only reason there are so many refferences to Phadon's book is because a few weeks ago someone posted a template requesting sources. I went through the list quickly one day and tried to cite sources for some of the objects and Phaidons book was the main refference book I had to hand - but I also cited sources to the BBC/The Design Museum and MoMA. I dont have a lot of time I can give to Wikipedia, so the "citing" is not technically perfect but I really do think the article should stay. I am the one who was proposing a Wikipedia version of Phaidon's book but I did not mean to do it here with this article. I meant some kind of portal.I believe if I had the time (and broadband) I could find more varied sources to cite. The article needs a lot of work but I dont think thats a good enough reason to delete it. --Trounce 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree that if it is being kept, it needs some heavy editing; but my hands are full with my Floyd Abrams project. But it doesn't matter if that is when the book was published vs. when the article was created; it just needs to be the actual list Phaidon has - This is unlikely to be the first time they have published a book of their design classics; perhaps it came from an earlier edition? --DavidShankBone 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is either going to be unsourced original research, a list based on vague criteria, or a reprint of Phaidon's Design Classic series. None of these outcomes equals an acceptible article in my opinion.--Isotope23 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would take original research - a Google for "Phaidon 'Design Classic'" came up on the first page with this Business Week article on it: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/may2006/id20060502_425801.htm --DavidShankBone 17:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment my point is that this article is comprised of items that are original research (like refering to the Parker Jotter pen as a "design classic"; which is unsourced), or is a list of items with vaguely defined criteria for inclusion (what constitutes a design classic?) or it is a list of items appearing in "Phaidon 'Design Classic'"... which I don't consider a good basis for an article... in that case why are we listing items that appear in a list in a book? What is the encyclopedic relevence of that?--Isotope23 17:59, 13 September 2006 (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.