Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Brett and Sons


 * 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. Notability has been established. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Brett and Sons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly promotional, created by SPA, not encyclopedic, no checkable references, no claim nor evidence of passing WP:CORP, verging on WP:CSD and WP:CSD. PROD was removed without any fixes to the article. David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources covering the antiques and furniture trade such as Timber Trades Journal; Arts & Decoration; The Connoisseur, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have access to good paper sources, please do add them to the article :-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Pls see below; Original comment: I searched google newspapers and was only seeing trivial mentions in relation to the company producing a replica of Churchill's desk. I could not find anything better. This business did not appear to have made a lasting impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC) style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here ]] 03:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Roaringboy (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. All I found was a mention in one Google Book, perhaps a repring of some academic articles, that "Part II studied four companies in this regard — large ones like British Airways, IBM and Jaguar and a small furniture company, Arthur Brett and Sons. ". I couldn't access the book to check for references or scope of coverage, and nothing else seems to match. Being a one of four case studies for a single academic work would nonetheless help with notability, if combined with one more or so good source, but well, I cannot even cite this one properly, and since no other sources are present... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "EDWARD BRETT, the 58-year-old head of Arthur Brett, a furniture manufacturer based in Norwich, says that 'furniture-making is a bug and once it is in the blood you cannot get it out of the system'. Mr Brett is the fifth generation of his family involved in making fine traditional English furniture. It all started with John Brett, a chairmaker, who was born in 1815. His son, Jonathan, established the family business that is now world renowned, particularly for pieces in the styles of Sheraton, Chippendale and Hepplewhite. Turnover is around Pounds 3.5 million and the firm employs 85 people. The cornerstone of the business remains individual craftsmanship. To ensure that skills are passed down the generations, Arthur Brett has its own unique four-year apprenticeship. ...  Notable commissions include replicas for Christie's of its Chippendale auctioneer's rostrum and conference tables for the Bank of England, the Crown Estate Commissioners and a Gulf Co-operation Council meeting in Bahrain. ... Exports now account for more than 50 per cent of business, and the firm has clients in Japan, Hong Kong, Turkey, Greece, the US, Europe and the Middle East. Two years ago it opened a showroom and office in Pimlico Road, London. 'You cannot expect everyone to come down to Norwich,' says Mr Brett."  The article notes: "And up at Nostell Priory in West Yorkshire there's a Chippendale library table which the National Trust asked Arthur Brett, probably this country's leading maker of fine reproductions, to make to special order. It'll cost you Pounds 103,694 (the price is worked out the way Chippendale used to do it: by costing materials and man-hours and adding what Arthur Brett calls 'a modest profit'), and in case you're wondering, they've already sold at least three. Arthur Brett is the company to ask if you've been left five Queen Anne dining chairs and the sixth is kaput -they will then make an identical one using traditional cabinet-making skills. .... Arthur Brett, for instance, tell me that they have recently made a precise copy of a William Vile cabinet originally made for Clarence House -it cost the buyer Pounds 100,000-odd but if you're after an original you'd be looking at something like a million."  The article notes: At the other end of the spectrum, Arthur Brett, a furniture company founded in 1860, has also found a new market in Asia. David Salmon, creative director of Arthur Brett, says British design is known throughout the world for its high quality. "It's the same reason people buy an Aston Martin or a suit from Savile Row: if you want those qualities, you want a British designer," he says. Like many other furniture companies, Arthur Brett went through tough times when Asian manufacturers started undercutting prices. While many UK firms were forced to shut their doors, the company's tactic was to go further upmarket, raising prices and creating more bespoke pieces. "We now export 20 per cent of our work to China," says Salmon, who adds that over the past 18 months sales to the US have picked up on a weekly basis. He says that many US customers have grown tired of buying cheap, low-quality furniture and are returning to the notion of well-made, high-end products, which they find among the UK designers.  <li> The article notes: "It will be interesting to see how a sale on February 17 at Sworders of Stansted Mountfitchet appeals to collectors, since it challenges recent assumptions about the furniture market. It is made up of items from the stock of Arthur Brett, the fourth-generation Norwich business, together with their furniture reference library. The business manufactured furniture, at one time employing more than 100 men. After 40 years in business, James Brett is selling its contents, many of them his favourites."</li> <li> The article notes: "The majority of the metamorphs are models of grown-up sophistication, however. Arthur Brett makes furniture based on classic English cabinetry that conceals high-tech audiovisual equipment. The push of a button on Brett's Regency rosewood commode, with hand-carved, fluted pillars and parcel gilt decoration, summons up a plasma television screen (GBP18,148)."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Arthur Brett and Sons to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Keep</S>-- sufficient sources have been presented by editor Cunard to justify keeping the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems to be a notable company and there has been sustained coverage. I found 2 more in the Singapore newspaper archives. To be honest the second source is essentially an interview. But overall, I get the feeling that the company is a notable English furniture manufacturer with quite a bit of history.
 * The labour of Arthur Brett's skilled men The Business Times, 7 March 1981, Page 13
 * A thorough Brett dyed in the wood The Straits Times, 3 December 1982, Page 4
 * There are also some trivial mentions which do indicate a credible claim of significance. The article btw is pretty badly written. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If new evidence is or has been provided, please check that it hasbeen added to the article please vote clearly 'keep' or 'delete' based ony our rationale. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure -- no sources have been added to the article and the tone continues to be overly promotional. I'm not confident that using the sources above would not result in the same. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a source review, and the article has been significantly copy edited after this nomination, which addressed promotional tone (see its Revision history). North America1000 00:12, 28 September 2016 (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.