Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andersen Corporation


 * 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. Company is notable. Relevant tags regarding the tone of this article are also there. (non-admin closure)    Kadzi    (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Andersen Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Please delete, or at least draftify, this article. Here's why.

A)

The article is more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. It's mostly just poorly-sourced fluff and hot air.

The article includes discussion about lots of non-notable awards that Andersen has won. But the discussion does not belong on Wikipedia; please see WP:ORGAWARDS. The article also discusses competitors that Andersen has bought — but these discussions are mostly unsourced or poorly-sourced.

Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles, not press releases. Please delete, or at least draftify, per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

B)

It doesn't matter if Andersen is the biggest US window manufacturer, controlling ~15% of the US market. Unfortunately, I still suspect that Andersen fails WP:GNG. I Googled for acceptable sources which we could use to help us write a new, non-spammy article about Andersen. Sadly, I don't think I found any. If you believe I missed some: Please show me your best two or three non-local sources which each provide sufficiently-deep background on Andersen. Sources which are independent; trade publications usually don't count.

If Andersen ever goes public in the future, more will be written about it, and then it will likely become notable. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment by nominator.I looked for a sufficient set of acceptable sources. I was disappointed by what I found. Let me explain.This Crunchbase profile, as well as this Gale / Encyclopedia.com article, are both full of puffery. I suspect that both may be based on content originally contributed by Andersen.Andersen's Bloomberg profile and Forbes profile are probably both too shallow.—Unforgettableid (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The Gale source cited above looks fine and it's easy to find more such as the Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands. All that's needed is improvement per WP:ATD while WP:IMPERFECT makes it clear that articles are welcome in mainspace even if they are not perfect. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Dear Andrew: A) The Gale source doesn't look fine to me. Possible puffery includes: "over 1,100", "nearly 120", "revolutionized the window industry", "success from the start", "&thinsp;’Jack of all trades’ and master of every one", "the most monumental innovation", "environmentally state-of-the-art", "the Cadillac of the window industry", and more. Do you still believe that the Gale source is independent and unbiased? B) We don't know that the Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands even covers Andersen. C) The article was originally created by a spammer, and is still spammy. I think that the company is non-notable and therefore its article is insufficiently watched. So, I think, we should follow WP:NOTFORPROMOTION rather than WP:IMPERFECT. We should delete, stubify, or draftify the article until a non-spammer fixes things. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands covers the company in volume III – Durable Goods – pages 11–13.  Q.E.D.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear : touché. The encyclopedia is in the Google Books catalog, even though Google Books only offers "snippet view" of the tome. So now we have one possibly-unbiased source. However, we need a total of at least two in order to prove notability. —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Certainly not a well written article but it clearly meets the notability guidelines. Here are some articles from the Star Tribune, the largest newspaper for the 2.5 million person metro area. -Eóin (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Andersen Windows and Doors launches multimillion-dollar rebranding effort
 * Andersen windows looks to expand again in Cottage Grove with $35M project
 * Andersen Corp. to build $105 million complex in Arizona
 * Andersen Corp. to sell large window and door division in $190 million deal
 * Andersen Corp. expanding again in Bayport
 * Andersen to buy Quebec-based window and door maker
 * Andersen Corp. employees will split $17 million in profit-sharing.
 * Feeling the economic pain, Andersen Windows lays off more
 * Andersen recalls 180 workers because of window tax credit
 * Andersen Windows debuts VeriLock, its integrated home security technology for windows and doors
 * Andersen to add 300 workers, spend $45M in Minnesota expansion
 * Andersen Corp. to distribute employee profit sharing for first time in five years
 * Comment. Dear and others: A) I think that the aforementioned Star Tribune sources don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, and may not meet WP:AUD either, and therefore Andersen is non-notable. B) Even if Andersen were notable, I think that, per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION, it would be best to delete or stubify or draftify the article and then possibly start over. ❧ What are your thoughts on both points?
 * I would not be opposed to stubbing the article and starting over. Many of the citations are for non-notable awards and are not significant coverage. I appreciate you looking through the article history and discovering some clearly paid editing.
 * Using a quote directly from the policy you cite "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.". I tried to make it clear that the Star Tribune is regional coverage. The paper is distributed across 4 states, is the largest paper for a state of 5.5 million, and in 2015 had the 10th largest paid circulation in the United States. Similar coverage is contained in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The articles are significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the company. - Eóin (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear : A) Thank you! B) Although I think I was wrong regarding WP:AUD, and the Star Tribune probably is regional coverage &mdash; I still think all twelve of your sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. If you believe I'm wrong, please do correct me. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Clear WP:SOFIXIT case; one of the largest window manufacturers in North America, and 'going public' on a stock market is not a standard for any article here, nor should it be (and I'd assume after 117 years as a private concern, that isn't going to happen).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Dear Nate: It doesn't matter whether or not a company is the largest US window manufacturer; it also doesn't matter how many decades the company has existed. All that matters is whether or not it meets WP:GNG. I think that Andersen does not. If it did, it might have a reasonable number of watchers and less promotional text. Do you truly believe that Andersen meets WP:GNG? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Their products are used in a good number of North American home and small businesses (my home has multiple windows from this company, for instance). They have multiple franchised installers who advertise every single day on American and Canadian television and in daily newspapers. The company more than meets GNG. Remove the WP:PROMO tone, and we have an easy keep.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Nate: It's true that their windows are quite popular in the US. Still, a company only passes GNG if there are qualifying sources. Could you please point me to two unbiased sources which meet the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria? I don't think anybody has yet done so. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting two previous unsuccessful deletion discussions. The articles looked very different back with not nearly as much promotional content. -Eóin (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Andersen Windows Corporation
 * Articles for deletion/Andersen Windows
 * Comment. Eleven years ago, the "trivial coverage" rule was not yet fully developed; see this historical guideline revision. So, at the time, perhaps it was perfectly okay for the article to be kept. —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - extremely well known company that makes windows, with plenty of coverage, but they were ripped off if they paid for this junk. It's borderline WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear : People keep claiming that there's plenty of coverage. But Andrew Davidson has only found one non-biased source, and I think all of 's sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. So we have only found one valid source; I'd like to see at least one or two more. —Unforgettableid (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep If we're seriously debating the notability of a manufacturing company with 100+ years trading history, $2.5B revenues and 12,000 staff, that's as good an illustration of the abusability of WP:GNG as you're ever going to find! By all means let's improve the article, it could do with some of that, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2020 (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.