Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis 1st

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 keep. --Ezeu 21:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis 1st/Grande Baroque

Ad copy for one line in a table of silver patterns Mangoe 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Also nominating Grande Baroque, another silver pattern article, on the same basis. Mangoe 17:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The main problem I have with this is that it is completely unsourced - it could be a joke for all I know. With documentation and minus some irrelevant details, these are utterly trivial but probably proper Wiki entries. - Corporal Tunnel 17:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Recent sourcing, however imperfect, solves the problem. Merging seems sensible. - Corporal Tunnel 15:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have provided one source. Bloger 00:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, the one source there leads to a site selling products, a no-no. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 05:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge both articles into a new Sterling silver - tableware patterns article. BlueValour 01:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - both articles are now sourced. BlueValour 01:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — google turns back about 17k of hits [1]. it is notable, and the article actually does decent and getting this across. slap a {{references}} and {{stub}} on it and call it a day. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per BlueValour, otherwise delete. Francis 1st is a corporate vanity page: reads like an advert, only source is commercial, but Grande Baroque is a little better. However, neither has enough asserted notability to justify a standalone page. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per BlueValour, if we can find something to say about silver patterns in general. Mangoe 11:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Both of the articles in question read like ad copy, to the point where they set off my {{copyvio}} sensors. I don't know how much of either article we can really keep other than some pretty bare facts. But by "keep and merge", do we mean "make on single article and at best redirect to it for the pattern names"?
• As per discussion below, Merge to manufacturer's articles. Mangoe 18:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The common article

We seem have some consensus (perhaps incomplete) for making a common article on patterns and listings these within it. Perhaps we should start discussing it.

One thing I would bring up is that the same article situation could exist for china patterns. It seems to me that we could/should write a single article to cover the whole phenomenon. BUT her's the rub: popping over to Replacements Ltd., I see that they claim to have 250,000 patterns [2]! They have 13 pages for Gorham alone, and I'm not even going to think about counting all the Noritake china patterns. I don't think any sane person could compile all this stuff into an article, or for that matter sort through it for notability; and I don't think any sane person would read it all.

I think the best we can do is talk about the phenomenon generally, and maybe mention a few examples (with images, because there's no point in this without a picture). If we can get a source for a historical treatment, example patterns would fit into that. BUt I think we need to think more about what a vote of "merge" means. Mangoe 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Devil's in the details, right? If we could count on someone being an expert and happening along to spiff things up, then we could ask for an article that deals coherently with major design schools, lists a couple of examples, mentions sub-variants, and stays free from overt considerations of commerce.
Like that's going to happen.
I suspect this should be allowed to stumble over problems as they come - in other words, let these merge into a stub article, which will either vanish into neglect or start to pick up mass. Then when it gets too big some other enterprising editor can come along and slice it up into bite-sized pieces.
I was doing some research into coffee cups the other day (oh the places we go), for example, and though there are thousands of coffee cup patterns by hundreds of different companies, there are really only a few designs - everything else is a variation. So there's the Diablo, the Barrel, the Bistro cup, a few others I'm already forgetting. It's likely that here too there will just be a handful of main designs, and if an expert happens along perhaps it'll all turn out well. - Corporal Tunnel 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe makes some good points. However, both articles contain encyclopaedic material that it would be a shame to lose. Another thought. Both manufacturers of the silver have existing articles Reed & Barton for Francis 1st and Wallace Silversmiths Inc. for Grande Baroque. Indeed Grand Baroque is already mentioned in the Wallace article. How about merging the articles into the relevant manufacturer's articles? BlueValour 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of the articles on silversmithing concerns are in terrible shape (e.g. Wallace Silversmiths Inc., which is yet another fulsome ad copy article). Howeer there is certainly room in all of them for expansion and wikification, and it seems to me that talking about some of their more famous patterns in the the context of those articles is where the patterns being discussed should go. Therefore I second this proposal. Mangoe 18:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As per the concern of too many patterns the Grande baroque and Francis 1'ts stand out based upon there uniqueness. Given that Grande baroque is probably the most sought after pattern (as can be verified by anyone in this field) and Francis 1'ts has a very complex pattern in addition each one of the set has a different design which is not the case with most - if not all - other patterns. Bloger 17:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that. What about International's "1810"? What about "Repousse"? "Francis 1st" is an old and well-known pattern, but so are very many others. I'd call the "each piece a different design" a trivia point. It's a well-known pattern, to be sure (it's what my mother-in-law has) but it's still just another silver pattern.

The thing is that I don't think we can say enough factual about them. Even the articles in the silver collector's magazine are straining for material, and much of what we have in the article is just puffery about what a great pattern it is. Mangoe 18:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As per international, I don’t get what you mean. Now “repousse” I get but although busy it is much less complex then Francis (at least in my opinion)

Bloger 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"1810" is also a very familiar pattern-- rather the opposite of any of the other patterns mentioned (it's extremely simple). Like any of the other patterns we've mentioned, it gets a bajillion Google hits. The thing is that what we are doing here is simply citing some of the best-known patterns from each manufacturer. Well, it seems to me then that we can say for Wallace that one of their major/best-known/whatever patterns is "Grande Baroque"-- with a picture-- and for International, "1810", and for Reed & Barton, "Francis 1st", and so forth. And if the pattern played an important role in the company's development, say so. But we aren't here to sing the artistic praises of any given pattern. A Wikipedia of, say, 1965 might well have said that F 1st and GB were fussy old patterns which had fallen out of fashion. When we get rid of the opinion, and lacking a picture, what we're left with is next to nothing. Mangoe 19:28, 24 October 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.