Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amish furniture


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Amish furniture

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Completely unsourced article likely created as promotional. Fails WP:GNG. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is obviously notable as a cursory browse of the scholarly sources immediately throws up good ones like Clusters and supply chain management: the Amish experience, Wood use by Ohio's Amish furniture cluster, Physical activity in an Old Order Amish community, Valued Amish Possessions: Expanding Material Culture and Consumption which all have something to say about this topic. The notability guideline states "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation." and this does not seem to have been done.  The article should therefore be kept for improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Those articles are about furniture making by the Amish, not the Amish furniture style. There is scope here for an article on the business carried out by the Amish (yes, the Amish make and sell furniture), but the current article claims that there is a "distinct style" for Amish furniture, as there is for the Shakers, yet there's no evidence to support that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   communicate 15:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article is completely unsourced and is very promotional. I've deleted the worst of it, but it may need a complete rewrite if none of the statements can be sourced.  Unless much work is done to the article in the next few days, I'd lean to delete.  Snotty Wong   communicate 15:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD is not cleanup. If the subject is notable, the article is saved.  You don't delete something because you don't like how its written.   D r e a m Focus  16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If an article about a notable subject is in a state where it would require a complete rewrite from scratch, then it can be deleted until such time that an editor would like to rewrite it in an encyclopedic fashion.  Just because a subject is notable doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't delete a terrible article about it.  Whether or not this article requires a complete rewrite from scratch is debatable, and depends on if any of the existing statements can be sourced.  Snotty Wong   babble 21:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Since the Amish don't have computers, or even electricity, I find it unlikely any of them are trying to write a promotional article for Wikipedia. Click Google books or Google news search, and read through the summaries.  This is a real thing, and it is given ample coverage.  Have you honestly never heard of Amish furniture before?   D r e a m Focus  16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I find myself agreeing with Dream Focus on both points. In fairness, the nominator didn't say that he/she had never heard of Amish furniture before, just that it wasn't notable enough for an article.  Its notability is unquestionable .  Like Snotty, I have no use for an unsourced article, although I think that someone will come to its rescue before week's end.  There are too many sources out there for this to remain a mediocre article.  Mandsford 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Dream - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On sources In browsing for sources, I notice that Pennsylvania Dutch seems to be a better search term for this topic. For example, see The Pennsylvania Dutch and their furniture.  The style of furniture may be more associated with the ethnicity than the religion and addressing the topic at this level would include better the work of other Mennonites and German settlers. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pennsylania Dutch" (or even Pennsylvania Deutsch) is the wrong search term here, especially when applied to furniture. John G Shea is a well-known author on furniture, I have two of his books on Pennsylvania Dutch (inc. the one you cite). Both of them describe one of the strands of "immigrant furniture" so well-known in the USA: pieces (usually chests, 'kast' in Dutch or 'schrank' in German) that were made "back in the Old Country" and used as travelling furniture, until they've now become family heirlooms. This "Pennsylania Dutch" is a well-known style of furniture, but it's not derived from the Amish as a new creation by them, nor is it what the Amish are producing today (according to the cited refs of Shaker and Mission pastiche). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing admin may wish to note that I have been forced to lock the article for 24 hours due to childish revert warring by Delicious Carbuncle and Col Warden. Spartaz Humbug! 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You weren't forced to do anything, but your choice to protect the article has likely saved Colonel Warden from violating WP:3RR. I don't appreciate your characterization of my edits as childish, but I'll assume you haven't bothered to look over the history. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Delicious carbuncle should please clarify his position. Does he want the article to be deleted or does he want it to be improved?  These seem mutually exclusive propositions.  Which is it? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I look at things in less black-and-white terms than you, Colonel. I do not believe that the article meets with our policies and guidelines, and therefore should be deleted on that basis. If the article is not deleted, it needs clean up and references. Does that clarify things for you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only guideline I see relevant to the deletion discussion here is WP:GNG, which the subject clearly meets. E.g., More Amish Selling Furniture Online, (Associated Press, July 3, 2003); Amish Furniture makes big impression (Associated Press, May 2, 1987); Quality, country charm, draw many to Amish furnishings (Milwaukee Sentinel, Sept. 25, 1993); MODERN MARKETING FOR AMISH FURNITURE (Akron Beacon Journal, December 31, 2005);No phone. No fax. Big sales., (National Post, Jan 4, 2009); The New Amish, (Asheville Citizen Times, Jan. 25, 2008); Why is Amish furniture special?, (Daily Press & Argus, Feb. 16, 2009); Amish furniture store has been built to last (Chronicle, February 29, 2008); Handshake artisans (Columbus Dispatch, August 26, 2009); Furniture dealer forged bond with Amish (News-Press, June 30, 2007); Furniture’s economic tool (Journal-Gazette, Fort Wayne, IN, December 28, 2009); Patience needed with suppliers, vendors say (Vindicator, Oct. 8, 2001, with other articles as part of feature on the Amish); Amish, Mennonites create promotion group (Furniture Today, April 28, 2006); Amish Furniture Heads West (Arizona Republic, December 18, 2004); Do As the Amish Do (New Mexico Business Weekly, February 2, 2009). Not to mention all the articles that are more fluff, about every local amish furniture store ever opened, or which simply rave about the furniture.  The fact is that its a legitimate cottage industry with shrewd marketing that has been covered as more than just fluff.--Milowent • talkblp-r  20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there should be consequences for removing an unreferenced cleanup tag on an article that has zero references. See here.  Snotty Wong   confabulate 22:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant to whether this article subject is notable, though. I get irritated when you overtag articles, but I'm not writing odes about it.--Milowent • talkblp-r  02:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Spartaz has for some reason decided to inject the removal of tags issue into this AfD, please see this related ANI discussion which concludes that Colonel Warden's removal of tags is disruptive: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep though it needs work. Apparently the Amish have exploited this with good marketing  and they do use machinery to make it(!!!), but the sourcing is out there.--Milowent • talkblp-r  17:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * keep and improve. Artw (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Milowent is right, the tags should stay, the title is correct (ie it shouldn't be changed to 'Pennsylvania Dutch'. I admit to a sort of COI as my brother's building a house which will be furnished solely with Amish furniture. :-) Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - very similar to . Hal peridol (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many blogs copy things from Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article had it more than two years before the blog had the same text.   D r e a m Focus  18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  —Hegvald (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm a craft furniture maker. I've never heard of Amish furniture. The article iself is unreferenced and itself describes the two illustrated pieces as "Shaker" and "Mission". Now both of these two are well-known styles with a traceable history. In particular the Shakers (for whom we need articles on their furniture) were a distinct group, much as the Amish, who exercised their skills in making furniture for their own use and for sale, much as I'm sure the Amish do. Yet the Shakers developed distinct styles, techniques and attitudes that are widely recognised and recorded today, in a way that that simply hasn't happened for the Amish. I have a workshop bookshelf with several feet on the Shakers, not a mention for the Amish. I hate to say it, but I suspect nothing more than a simple marketing ploy to create a brand here, following on the bonnet-strings of the Shakers' success. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just checked the indexes. As I remembered, I've got one article (Fine Woodworking) on an Amish furnituremaker and their use of diesel-hydraulic power to avoid prohibitions on electrically-powered machinery. Yet even in that article, and a discussion of what the chap makes, there's still no mention of "Amish furniture" as a style. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited some sources in my comment above. Amish furniture is a huge marketing thing.--Milowent • talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  16:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead opens, "Amish furniture is a distinctive style of furniture…" It isn't.
 * If you want an article that reads, "Amish furniture is a recent fabrication, pulled together from indistinct rootsy sources to flog itself to ignorant suburbanites who think they're buying into a tradition rather than just a brand" and you might have a referenceable article. However the article as it is sets out to describe a genre of "Amish furniture" as if that were a similar thing to Shaker furniture, when it clearly isn't, and there's no reference out there to support this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No question the article needs a revamp. I wouldn't say its a recent fabrication either, its at least 25 years old based on the national 1987 AP story as a guide.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  14:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For claiming "a distinctive style", 25 years is like yesterday. That's even newer than Memphis Group, Mutoid Waste Company or Steampunk. Can WP:NEO (let alone unref) apply to a theme or style? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, its more Eames Era than Eames era that's for sure.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 02:09, 16 November 2010 (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.