Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dansk International Designs


 * 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. North America1000 13:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Dansk International Designs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article seems to be about a non-notable distributor of cookware. All the sources out seem to be about the founder dying and it getting acquired by another company. Neither of which is notable. As an alternative to deletion it could be merged into the article of it's parent company Lenox Corporation. Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are two indisputably reliable sources currently cited in the article, with full articles about the company during its long heyday — The New York Times, 1958: "Accessories Designed by Dane Proving Popular in U.S. Homes; Jens Quistgaard, Son of Noted Sculptor, a Born Craftsman" and The Toledo Blade, 1982: "Prolific Tableware Designer Has Introduced 2,000 Styles". What is the problem here? — Toughpigs (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also added another reference from The Minneapolis Star, 1981: "Tableware 'feels' Danish, but Dansk made worldwide". — Toughpigs (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You not following the notability guidelines for corporations is the problem here. It would be cool if at some point you started paying attention to what WP:NCORP considers trivial coverage. Since it includes stuff about products and product releases. As I'm sure you know and are just ignoring. Anyway, those articles seem to be mostly about the guy that started the company and he already has an article. Maybe this one can be merged into his, but I wouldn't call the company notable because he is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * NCORP says that product reviews do not necessarily confer notability, and that individual products should not get their own article. Neither of those apply to the coverage that I've mentioned. Your suggestion that the Minneapolis Star article titled "Dansk made worldwide" is not about Dansk is an unusual interpretation of that policy. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to quote a few paragraphs out of an otherwise extremely short article your claiming isn't related to products or product reviews "Dansk designs are classic contemparary. Take for example Fjord flatware, with it's comfortably-round teak handles, or generaion stoneware with it's restrained striped edge. "They look as right today as they did when they were new." Hjermstad said." and another paragraph "The most elegant pattern-simple stripes with triads of color-in the set is named Fredriksborg. After the summer home of the Danish royal family. The pattern of thick and thin strips is named after Copenhagen's artistic and student community." And another paragraph "The bistro line is seven patterns in one, all interchangeable. The bride or hostess could pick dinner plates, salad plates, saucers, soup bowls and cups in three or four different patterns and all would look well together. The cup is mug-like and can be used with or without a saucer, as you wish." How the flying F is all of that and "The cup is mug-like and can be used with or without a saucer, as you wish." not about products or a product review? What does any of that have to do with the company? It's completely ludicrous that your trying to claim it isn't about products and that I had to waste my freken time transcribing it to show that your wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - The sources already in the article, the material added by and the ample additional sources about the company and its products available via Google and Newspapers.com, all demonstrate that the company is independently notable. Alansohn (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some of the sources on Newspaper.com and Google? Otherwise, it's just WP:ATADD. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources already cited, additionally a search on Jstor revealed an paper in Gastronomica focused solely on the history of the Dansk design philosophy . PainProf (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC). Additional offline resources exist for this topic, in particular I note Harvard has a large collection of films documenting the design process. Suggesting an important impact beyond the online sources already quoted, digital records of that archive are available here:, additionally I found the MET gallery in New York also maintains a collection. It seems like they likely had a significant and lasting impact on design. PainProf (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the additional sources found by . -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep based on WP:ORGCRIT for articles in in The New York Times, The Minneapolis Star, Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture and The Blade. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:30, 29 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.