Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grande Baroque (2nd nomination)

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 merge to R. Wallace & Sons. (non-admin closure) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grande Baroque[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on a single silverware pattern, unsourced for fifteen years. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any notability here.--Darwinek (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was hoping the Chicago Tribune article would be good, but it simply talks about sliverware in general, there's a magazine article talking about 1950s items, same thing, a few scattered mentions of the pattern but nothing major. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Grande Baroque pattern by Wallace is the most popular tableware pattern at least in the United States and probably in the world. I appreciate that this may be unfamiliar to some but anyone with even some knowledge in this area would agree.

I understand that this in of itself is not enough and it has to be sourced. But consider "grande+baroque"+"wallace"&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4hPLo_vD0AhUamXIEHRN2BeMQ6AF6BAgLEAI#v=onepage&q="grande%20baroque"%20"wallace"&f=false This where as much is noted in court preceding about the pattern.Bloger (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only is Grand Baroque a pattern, it also was the part of a major trademark case which could be used to expand the article.[1][2][3]. Other sourcing includes New York Times (I'm a subscriber and have full access to this, in which Grande Baroque is awarded a major award and a section discusses it), a bit of BASIC: [4]. There are surely offline sources, especially in decorative arts, flatware, and antique guides. If all else fails we can merge it into the Wallace Silversmiths article. Missvain (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Missvain and Bloger. Seems should have been kept before relisting (in the WP:Shadow of Keep, an essay I've thought of writing). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could be improved with more secondary sourcing, but the content appears notable and is a good addition to Wikipedia. As has been noted, the Grande Baroque pattern is of definite note to silverware.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge/Redirect to Wallace Silversmiths - does not meet GNG - it properly belongs in a List of Silverware Patterns or something like that, but I couldn't find any such list or related article - being a popular pattern is not enough for a Keep, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, "arguments which base notability...upon...popularity make no use of policies or guidelines." - Epinoia (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I nominated this I was unaware of the existence of the article R. Wallace & Sons. I think a merge there makes sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as suggested by Epinoia. Several people here have argued that the pattern is well known, but no one has added anything to the article to support their argument. Lacking improvement, the article still has only a single source and thus totally fails the RS requirement for notability. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.