Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadwood 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 Speedy keep per snow. The nom's concerns have now been addressed and fixed. Great work.  Syn  ergy 21:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Broadwood and Sons
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has very few informations. This article is unsourced. This article is almost only promotional. This article is almost copied from the frontpage on the company's own website Broadwood & Sons. Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject of the article is notable and well-represented in the scholarly literature. It's a stub, so it's bound to have relatively little information; sources shouldn't be hard to come by; and I'm afraid I don't see anything that's overtly promotional in the article, except perhaps the list of famous users. A cleanup tag or two would most likely solve this. I deprodded this article earlier, and have added a rescue tag. Alexrexpvt (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that an article, which only concists of the following is nothing else than overly promotional: "Broadwood and Sons is the oldest piano company in the world, named after its founder John Broadwood. The instruments have been played by musicians including Mozart, Haydn, Dussek, Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt. The company holds the Royal Warrant as manufacturer of pianos to Queen Elizabeth II.". Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep literally hundreds of reliable references exist to establish that the subject of the article is notable and that the information in an article can be verified. Article needs to be moved to proper title. The significance is more historical than due to present activities. Drawn Some (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that the article is a stub and not informative at present does not alone constitute grounds for deletion. Also, if articles are deleted on the grounds of being "overly promotional" very little would be left of Wikipedia.THD3 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * THD3 does not comment that the whole article is stolen from the frontpage of the company's own website (http://www.uk-piano.org/broadwood). That THD3 does not comment such an important thing looks suspicious... Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you insinuating that I have some connection to Broadwood, either as part of the company itself, a dealer, or otherwise? You're way off base.  Not that it's any of your business, but I have no connection to the piano industry, thank God.  Now, to the subject at hand: if there is information copied from the website, it should be rewritten to Wikipedia standards, which appears to be underway.THD3 (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not insinuating anything, because I know how you guys consistently back each other up - for example: User talk:Binksternet. And it is indeed suspicious that you didn't comment the very serious copyright violation. Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AfD is not the appropriate forum for airing personal grievances. If you have problems with other editors, I suggest you pursue them through the dispute resolution process. Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If "you" means "Fanoftheworld" I will of course answer THD3's question above. Alexrexpvt, read the "?". Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you (and yes, you means you), to refrain from responding to THD3 where relevant; I reminded you that AfD isn't the right place to discuss your problems with other editors. There is a dispute resolution process for that. This page is solely for the discussion of the Broadwood and Sons nomination. Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If a person ask me a question I will of course answer it no matter what! The question is asked on this page, and therefore the answer is on this page. I think you should write to THD3 about his question above! And remind yourselves "... that AfD isn't the right place to discuss..." instead of keeping talking here. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Articles stolen from companies' own websites should be deleted. Not only because of the copyright problem but also because of the fact, that it often is promotional. The article is not just promotional but concists of only promotional stuff. See below:

The article: "Broadwood and Sons is the oldest piano company in the world, named after its founder John Broadwood. The instruments have been played by musicians including Mozart, Haydn, Dussek, Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt. The company holds the Royal Warrant as manufacturer of pianos to Queen Elizabeth II.".

The frontpage on the company's own website (http://www.uk-piano.org/broadwood): "John Broadwood & Sons is the oldest and one of the most prestigious piano companies in the world. The instruments have been enjoyed by such famous people as Mozart, Haydn, Chopin, Beethoven and Liszt. The company holds the Royal Warrant as manufacturer of pianos to Queen Elizabeth II.".

It looks suspicious that no one has commented the copyright problem, which in general is a very critical problem.

If the article should stay, there should be much more encyclopedical stuff than just an article of only promotional stuff. Articles, which only concist of promotional stuff should be deleted because there is no reason for keeping these articles. On the contrary, articles, which just have some few claims from few users about being "overly promotional" in few places compared with the articles size, should of course stay.

Some small changes in this article is not enough to make it encyclopedical. There has to be made very big changes to make it Wikipedia worth. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very famous brand indeed. The oldest piano company in the world is sufficient for notability! DGG (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep in light of removal of advertising tone. KuyaBriBri Talk 13:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources exist, just needs cleanup & expansion.YobMod 10:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Alexrexpvt did great work. Fanoftheworld, you should have given Alex a chance to improve the article after your Prod was removed, and at least discussed it on the talk page before nominating. Deletion is not intended for removing poor pages about notable subjects; the oldest piano company is obviously notable. Copyright violation is certainly a problem (though perhaps fair use could be argued with such a short excerpt), but when faced with it you should clean it up using reliable sources. Fences and windows (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

- "Fanoftheworld, you should have given Alex a chance to improve the article after your Prod was removed, and at least discussed it on the talk page before nominating." = Wrong, according to Alexrexpvt's comment on my talk page: "I have removed the prod tag from Broadwood and Sons, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it.  If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article.  Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion.  Thanks!  Alexrexpvt (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)". According to "Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion." it is correct what I have done. And if the article wasn't nominated for deletion, I don't think the article would have been improved at all, and the very seriously copyright violation would still have been here (which it already had been for years!!!). I am sure that Alexrexpvt has improved the article, only because of the nomination for deletion. - "Deletion is not intended for removing poor pages about notable subjects; the oldest piano company is obviously notable." = Yes, but if the whole article is all stolen from the company's own website, the article should of course be deleted. No good reasons for keeping stolen articles no matter how notable the subjects are. - "Copyright violation is certainly a problem (though perhaps fair use could be argued with such a short excerpt), but when faced with it you should clean it up using reliable sources." = Wrong. When users faces a copyright violation he/she can nominate it for deletion. The user does not need to look for third-party sources and re-write the article to solve the very seriously copyright problem. To make a nomination for deletion is all correct - especially in this case. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Fences and windows above:
 * I think the plagiarized version should have been removed before a new article was written. Now that it is rewritten anyway, I think Wikipedia should keep the current version but delete all the versions before the article was rewritten (I believe that this is an easy thing for an administrator to do, but correct me if I'm wrong). (And that will make everyone happy, I think.) --Hegvald (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the article at Template talk:Did you know as a new article by Alexrexpvt and hope that it will be treated as such for the purposes of that page. --Hegvald (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, noting the revision by Alexrexpvt. I don't think any of the nominator's concerns are valid anymore. The article is well-referenced and notability is evidenced in both the article and the references.  There is no longer a promotional tint on the article.  Them  From  Space  03:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, and well referenced now.  D r e a m Focus  17:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Certainly could be expanded but presently has plenty of sourcing to address concerns raised, nice overhaul. -- Banj e  b oi   20:34, 9 May 2009 (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.