Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lundby (dollhouses)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lundby (dollhouses)

Lundby (dollhouses) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

DeleteClearly we see "Original research", POV, Blatant website advertising, linking the page to a website ready to take your orders! Simply because a manufacture has been around and has been selling this or that, does not make it "note worthy". Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Notability Lundby's clams that they are the "first to use electric lights" is not a pretty straightforward assertion of significance. It may be if it were cited and provable, but it isn't

We see, "Lundby houses, furniture and accessories are 3/4 scale, also known as 1/16th scale where 1 inch in real life is 3/4 inch in dolls house size. Other houses of the same scale include BRIO, Lisa, Verro, and a number of American tin houses with plastic furniture." Again clear advertising, as it has nothing to do with an industry, but rather what this particular store offers.

They offer "The most common Lundy house style is the Gothenburg, which has remained very similar in style from the 1960s to 2006 when it was discontinued. The Stockholm House was introduced in the mid 1970s (and a newer, modern version in 2006)." Noting what they offer for sale. How is this in keeping with WP:NPOV? EDIT, didn't mean to sound like I'm not AGF, if my wording is a bit strong forgive my poor choice of wordsMystar 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no notability, no sourcing. There's no reason here to suspect spamming, as this is not some SPA or flyby, but an established editor: AGF! --Orange Mike 03:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; If this company has been building dollhouses since the 1940s then that's notable. The nominator misunderstands the concept of WP:SPAM, as another editor has already explained, when they attempted to get this speedily deleted... twice. I notice the nominator claimed that they "have discussed it with a couple of administrators who also felt it was blatant advertising". Please include links to those discussions in this AFD, if administrators are claiming this article is "blatant advertising" then they shouldn't be admin, although I couldn't actually find any record of these alleged discussions, what could have happened to them? It's a standard thing in every article about a company to list the official site, that isn't "blatant website advertising". It's also acceptable (and encyclopedic) to decribe what their most popular house is, or what sizes they are. No reason at all for deletion here, good faith nomination, but totally misguided. At worst it could do with another source (I already added one). Masaruemoto 03:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I really have no dog in this hunt. I know nothing about dollhouses, I have no intention of buying dollhouses. However, this article is listed as a stub, it has been edited by multiple editors and it makes a pretty sizeable assertion of notability. And yes, I am perfectly within my rights to remove a speedy deletion template. I'm not sure what posting my past comments had to do with anything. This is not even within range of spam, much less blatant spam. I stand by my twice removing the speedy deletion templates. There is no reason for this article to be deleted...a google search even shows this manufacturer has an independent fan club. Why wouldn't an article about a corporation link to the corporation's external website and why wouldn't an article about a corporation discuss what the corporation does? How is that POV? By this logic, if we put on the Chevy article that they make the Corvette, that would be spam. Please show where there is original research. Smashville 04:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Also, as I was not the original author, I find it highly inappropriate to place a warning on my talk page about removing the CSD templates. Smashville 04:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep' it seems to be the leading company in Sweden in its sector. Also we have this: "Lundby, a Swedish company, was the first dollhouse in the world to be put into full production." on http://www.cheekymonkeytoys.com/lundolhous.html, and Cheekymonkeytoys (that has "been voted "Best Toy Store" for seven years as the 2007 Reader's Choice of the Almanac and Palo Alto Weekly") seem to be independent from Lundby. Seems notable. Deniz^T_C 04:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Better known (and google-able) as "Lundby of Sweden" (even in Sweden). History Hobbyist history Caroline's merger prop in academic study In the collection of the Nordic Museum. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm having trouble accepting with good faith the claim that this was "discussed with two administrators" both of whom agreed it was blatant advertising. If they agreed that, either of them could have speedy deleted the article on the spot. At best, assuming these conversations took place, they may have agreed that -- as with any article -- a debate on notability at AFD was warranted. Please don't try to invoke invisible authority as a reason to delete an article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Discussion of advertising was discussed in chat (the two quotes came from him) and on AIM. I like to double check before I place a tag, in case I'm missing something or am unaware of a specific rule. The term "Blatant" is mine alone, the rest agreed that it appeared to be. As for "original research" we can see that there is only unfounded statement as to their claims and a link to a website. Simply because a company has been around for a few years does not prove notability. Again, having a page just to have a page is not acceptable. Further this page has had plenty of time for additions (there are none as it is not notable), citations (again we see none for the claims are unfounded), and or significant contributions (again none worthy of note). So how is it again that it is not advertising? Mystar 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, for one, there has to be a conflict of interest for it to be advertising. The fact that the creator of the article has done far more on WP than just this article is proof that it is not advertising. The first company to mass produce dollhouses and you are saying it's not notable? The page is listed as a stub. Stubbiness of an article is not a reason for deletion. You need to read WP:SPAM to learn what an advertisement consists of. What you are claiming is very much assuming bad faith. Could you also direct us as to which specific admin stated this was blatant advertisement so that they may contribute to this discussion? Smashville 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- per smashville- AGF/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Did I miss the memo that was issued saying that we no longer need citations for sources, or that claims such as "was the first to....." needn't be supported? Or have I missed some new rule that now allows Wikipedia to solicit goods and services via links on Wikipedia? This site has nothing more than a few boasts about what someone "thinks" of them, and that's wonderful! Truly it is! However that in and of itself is not encyclopedic, nor is it material suitable for Wikipedia. We see several statements as to this or that, and plenty of time for these sources to be researched and cited as proof, yet none exists; yet you say, that these kinds of site and statements are now acceptable then? You seem to want to say that a page that only has some boasts as to its achievements (none can be sourced or verified, and none listed) and only has one link to the companies store is not advertising? Forgive me, I know I'm a bit slow but I guess I'm also blind. Oh, I also suspect that you didn't read my post where I stated, the word "blatant" way "my" verbage, and not the two admins. I'm only be much too happy to e-mail you their comments in privet, as I do not wish to place them on the spot, when what I asked them was for some clarification and an opinion. You can contact them on your own after I provide that e-mail. Nevertheless, WIKI is a place of consensus. The opinion or reasoning of the many outweighs the one, and I am all too happy to bow to that fact. But I do think that people need to get their facts straight and actually look at the page and its content before jumping on the bandwagon. That being said, I am curious as to how a page with several boasts and claims, with only a link to their store is not advertising?

Oh, also if the page is decided as a keep, wonderful! as it was by consensus, and had aslo a good amount of attention brought to it so that someone would perhaps add to it, and itsn't "that" what Wikipedia is all about as well? IF that doesn't happen, then it has no business being here and needs to be removedMystar 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please, for the love of all things good and holy, quit assuming bad faith. This is clearly not a bad faith article and it's clearly a notable company and it is clearly NOT ADVERTISING. It would be one thing to argue the notability of the company, but you consistently harp on the fact that you are accusing an editor who has been posting on English Wikipedia for over a year and has made over 1500 edits on Swedish Wikipedia of advertising. The fact that you continue to assume bad faith towards the editor almost amounts to a personal attack. There are a ton of google hits that prove the notability of this. Unfortunately, I don't read Swedish and can't speak Swedish and I'm fairly certain most of the other posters here can't either, but if finding English language webpages that testify to the obvious notability of a Swedish company is that easy, there are most likely Swedish pages as well. A lack of citations is NOT a reason to delete a page. And please identify the admin who you say have stated that an editor who has been editing English Wikipedia for over a year and has made 1500 edits to Swedish Wikipedia is a spammer. It would be nice to know their reasoning and if this represents a blanket change in WP policy. Please demonstrate how this is advertising and please explain again how it lacks notability. Your only logic to why this is advertising seems to be, "The article says what the company does and what they sell." Wouldn't that be what you expected from an article about a corporation? The fact of the matter is that you have not given one reason as to why this article fails to meet WP:CORP other than the continuous accusations of an established editor spamming Wikipedia. I mean, there is an independently published magazine/newsletter relating to the company here. If you would notice, the address for the magazine/newsletter is Falls Creek, Virginia, which is not in Sweden. Smashville 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment It looks like someone has his undies in a bunch. Please take time to simmer down. As I've stated, I'm not assuming anything. I've stated fact, lack of citation, lack of source, boast or statements that are/were not backed up. Simple as that :) As I've stated I think it is not appropriate. And again is as simple as that. I assume nothing other than the facts. Simply because another editor places a page, doesn't make it suddenly "all ok". I've demonstrated how and why, the fact that you disagree is simply a difference of opinion, and my friend; this is why we are doing this. Also I would appreciate you reading exactly what I've stated and not twisting my words into something I didn't say. With respect to the other people I've spoken with. Nowhere have I stated "that an editor who has been editing English Wikipedia for over a year and has made 1500 edits to Swedish Wikipedia is a stammer." What I "did" say was that we looked at the page and it was agreed that it looked like an advert. I'll kindly ask you to stop assuming things and that follows into your bad faith. Mystar 02:16, 4 October 2007 (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.