Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miele

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. — CharlotteWebb 03:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miele[edit]

I put this article up for deletion because it is basically one big advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not the Yellow Pages Debaser23 13:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ At least no assertion as to why they are notable. Does read like an advert so I marked it for speedy (G11). Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, I pegged that one wrong, I change my vote to keep. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though no prejudice to a decent article being written, I believe the brand to be reasonably well known and I would therefore guess will have reliable sources and meet WP:CORP without much difficulty. --pgk 13:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So why delete? I don't see inverse relation on Delete and your arguments. - Cate |_Talk 13:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am agreeing with deleting the article as it currently stands. The article as it currently stands does not meet the required standard. The fact that the company itself may be notable etc. etc. isn't the question being addressed. We should be looking for quality not quantity, we have no need to keep rubbish waiting for someone to make it good. If someone addresses the issues whilst the AFD is running I will likely change my mind, but in it's current state no. I've seen too many AFDs where people jump up and down saying but this is a notable company (or whatever) and 6 months later we still have the same junk article as was put up for deletion. --pgk 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DP#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: Article needs improvement. Cate |_Talk 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it's improved drop me a note and I'll reconsider. --pgk 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's nothing particularly terrible about this article anyway. A total rewrite isn't needed, just some very minor tweaking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, possibly not my second reading of it and it doesn't seem quite as bad as the first, but it lacks sourcing. --pgk 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing should be no problem. They get plenty of press, and seem to be fairly often cited as a case study in business and management books. For example, the book Driving Consumer Equity (ISBN 0684864665) gives a case study on them in terms of "value equity", in that consumers are willing to pay considerably more for a durable product built to a high standard of quality. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I already agreed that the company probably meets WP:CORP and finding WP:RS shouldn't be a problem. I'm not advocating deleting the compancy or saying we should never have such an article. I'm looking at the article as currently written which doesn't meet our standards. When it does no problem, but as I say above, I've seen similar debates where months (or in some cases years) after an initial afd/vfd the article is still in the same poor state. --pgk 14:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep' - Miele is well know trademark (in Europe). Anyway a clean-up is needed. - Cate |_Talk 13:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also the "What links here" explains the relevance of the article, and the article is also available in other 5 wikipediae. I removed the speedy delection. Cate |_Talk 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG SPEEDY KEEP Miele vacuums are extremely well-known in the high-end market. Definite keep. More facts: company more than 100 years old, branches in 25 countries, more than 15,000 employees, sales (as of 2002) $2.2 billion.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep a household name (pun only partly intended). Guy (Help!) 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Significant brand. Rich Farmbrough, 14:59 5 December 2006 (GMT).
Keep, Miele is a very well known brand in the world. It just needs lots of expansion and cleanup, then its fine. Miele has a wide presence in Europe, US and Asia, so notability is not a problem here. It's more on the article quality. Ter e nc e Ong 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known manufacturer of appliances. WP:RS should easily be satisifed. -- Whpq 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is reasonable in its current state, and it's a well-known manufacturer of consumer goods, so passes WP:CORP by a country mile. Chris cheese whine 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. This is a well-known European white goods manufacturer and does meet WP:CORP standards. The article does require a cleanup but deletion is too far. (aeropagitica) 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 23:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference I can see why someone could think this company is non-notable, but this is not a problem of the company - rather the article is lacking and needs to be brought up to spec. Agathoclea 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic and famous company in Europe. --Oakshade 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Realy well-known company. Deleting this article won't make it better. --ManiacK 23:35, 7 December 2006 (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.