Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigg

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 of the debate was delete, although Timffl is free to rewrite a version that complies with WP:CORP criteria. I myself have heard of and seen the bottles produced by this company.Kimchi.sg 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigg

Doesn't meet notability criteria in relation to WP:CORP -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7: doesn't even assert notability StuartF 12:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy per StuartF. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Meets notability criteria : The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization. It is to aluminium drinking bottles what victorinox is to swiss army knives.
• Move : their bottle is design classic, part of the permanent collection at New York Museum of Modern Art but an article for the company name may not be justified. I'd move the content to the currently defunct (due to copyright violation) article 'Sigg Bottle' and hope that it might grow. I'd do this now except that I don't like to pre-empt the discussion. Timffl 13:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC) I've copied the etxt to a scratch area on my user page and reworded to suit the title 'Sigg Bottle' - I'll move it there if I don't see objections here or on my user page. Timffl 19:43, 26 June 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.