Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitsoe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was nomination withdrawn due to expansion - keep. Glen 10:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vitsoe
Not entirely certain what this article is meant to be about; it's either supposed to be the biography of a non-noteworthy furniture designer or the non-noteworthy company he founded. Currently, it's a little of both, but it doesn't say much of worth about either. Not a speedy candidate, as it does assert noteworthiness; however, no reliable outside sources are provided, and my search finds nothing particularly compelling. Appears to fail WP:BIO and/or WP:CORP. Original author also appears to have a conflict of interest. Has been tagged cleanup practically since it was created in June, to no effect. Shimeru 07:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Significantly edited to be about a notable corporation since nomination. Unfocused 17:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (And after two of the "Delete" opinions were expressed. Perhaps a relisting is in order?) Unfocused 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the above. Denmark has a ton of furniture companies but I wouldn't consider many of them notable (I might be biased on this one, I work in a furniture store). Tvilum-Scanbirk might be notable since their products are found in countless Danish officies, but I can't really think of other good examples. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Highly notable. How many furniture companies do you know that have been making the same product, virtually unchanged, for over forty years? Then consider that this company doesn't make anything but the 606 Universal Shelving System. Dieter Rams's designs are world famous, and this is one of the most widely used of his designs. Unfocused 08:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a good reason not to delete Dieter Rams, or perhaps even 606 Universal Shelving System (though I personally have my doubts about the latter), but neither or those is being considered. The ability of the designer has nothing to do with the noteworthiness of the manufacturing company or its founder, and that/those is/are what are being considered. Similarly, we have an article for Frank Lloyd Wright, but not for the guys who actually constructed the buildings. Shimeru 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Are you just trying to be right rather than improve Wikipedia, by suggesting that a product might have an article while the company that makes it and only it should not? That makes no sense whatsoever to me. You classify smaller things in the larger whole, not the other way around. Further, I ask again; how many other companies do you know that base their entire existence on making one single product line, virtually unchanged for over forty years? (Note this time I've even made it easier by broadening the question to not just furniture companies.) Unfocused 09:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Are you? As I said, I don't particularly buy the idea of the shelves having their own article -- I just think that your defense speaks more to them than to their manufacturer. To clarify, I am not convinced that the company or its product is noteworthy by association with a designer. As for single product lines, I don't see how producing fewer products makes a company more noteworthy. That's an interesting footnote. Is this company renowned for their shelving above and beyond its competitors' level of renown? Did this company or its sole product have some sort of greater historical impact? Maybe so, but I didn't find any evidence to that effect. It seems like an average company to me. If you can show it passes WP:CORP, though, by all means... Oh, and cheers for adding the bit about the shelving to the Rams article, saves me editing the nom to propose merging that part. Shimeru 10:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- The company's shelves are so renowned that they hold a place in the MOMA. Notability for the company that makes them is clear and obvious by their inclusion there. WP:CORP is only a guideline that we're supposed to be intelligent enough to ignore when appropriate. Unfocused 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Are you? As I said, I don't particularly buy the idea of the shelves having their own article -- I just think that your defense speaks more to them than to their manufacturer. To clarify, I am not convinced that the company or its product is noteworthy by association with a designer. As for single product lines, I don't see how producing fewer products makes a company more noteworthy. That's an interesting footnote. Is this company renowned for their shelving above and beyond its competitors' level of renown? Did this company or its sole product have some sort of greater historical impact? Maybe so, but I didn't find any evidence to that effect. It seems like an average company to me. If you can show it passes WP:CORP, though, by all means... Oh, and cheers for adding the bit about the shelving to the Rams article, saves me editing the nom to propose merging that part. Shimeru 10:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Are you just trying to be right rather than improve Wikipedia, by suggesting that a product might have an article while the company that makes it and only it should not? That makes no sense whatsoever to me. You classify smaller things in the larger whole, not the other way around. Further, I ask again; how many other companies do you know that base their entire existence on making one single product line, virtually unchanged for over forty years? (Note this time I've even made it easier by broadening the question to not just furniture companies.) Unfocused 09:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a good reason not to delete Dieter Rams, or perhaps even 606 Universal Shelving System (though I personally have my doubts about the latter), but neither or those is being considered. The ability of the designer has nothing to do with the noteworthiness of the manufacturing company or its founder, and that/those is/are what are being considered. Similarly, we have an article for Frank Lloyd Wright, but not for the guys who actually constructed the buildings. Shimeru 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 09:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is tricky as the 606 Shelving System is notable: it's in the Museum of Modern Art, and most modular office shelving you find today is a poor copy. I believe it deserves an article more than the manufacturer, though (so stubify the redirect). --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- The little Russian Matryoshka doll goes inside the big Russian Matryoshka doll, not the other way around. Unfocused 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Glen 09:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Note article has been significantly expanded since the above AfD was filed. If you have expressed an opinion above it may pay to qualify that we are all talking about the same page. Thanks!
- Comment Article has been almost completely rewritten in an admirable manner. I still feel it should be at 606 Shelving System, with the redirect pointed there and with some minor reformatting, because I believe the product is more noteworthy than the company. However, I would not object to keeping the pages and redirects as they currently are, if that is the consensus. I'm still not convinced the company is worth more than a footnote, but I don't believe the information about the shelving should be deleted. This isn't a withdrawal, since I wish to see others' input on the matter. Shimeru 10:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, you nominated it correct? I'll close this as a keep and you just go ahead make the changes to it as you would any other :) Save a lot of time. Thanks Glen 10:33, 10 November 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.
