Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Douglas


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hunter Douglas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

cannot find significant coverage - not notable organisation nonsense ferret  14:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, quite a few new references dug up - happy to go with consensus on this one and withdraw nomination --nonsense ferret  21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I removed some puffery from the article that may indicate that it was written by an editor with a conflict of interest. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely unreferenced, and marked as such for over 2 years without anyone digging anything out. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are reasons for deletion. An article is to be deleted if it's on a non-notable topic, not if it's a bad article or no one has paid attention to it. Cullen is paying attention to it now, and Cullen does not waste his time on non-notable topics. As a participant in an AfD discussion, you would do well to investigate whether a topic is notable or not. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete It may be that they have very efficient SEO to get themselves to the top of Google search. If anyone else tries a search, start at page 21. I found nothing independent or reliable in 20 pages of ghits. In fact, virtually nothing that wasn't their own sites. Big operation? Looks like it. Independently and reliably covered? Well, now... The article's been tagged for references since May 2011 (still on my watchlist, even, as it me what tagged it). If someone comes up with something, all well and good. But do start at page 21... Peridon (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep In this 1999 article, the New York Times called Hunter Douglas "the world's leading maker of window blinds and coverings". The current corporate entity was formed in 1971, as described in this article in the Montreal Gazette, and was notable even back then as it operated in 75 countries. This 2003 article in the Washington Post said the company had $880 million in U.S. and Canadian sales, and "numerous facilities across this country". In 1992, the Denver Post published this 892 word article describing it as an "immensely successful company". There is a profile of the company in Jane's Major Companies of Europe, published in 1975. In 1993, the New York Times collaborated with the company to publish a book on the company's product line. Though not an independent source, this publication is an indicator of the significance of the firm. This book on business management devotes 15 pages to Hunter Douglas. This book on luxury marketing devotes three pages to the company. This book on business management devotes a chapter to Hunter Douglas.


 * I looked only at English language sources. The company is headquartered in The Netherlands, operates in over 100 countries, and has 17,000 employees. I found many newspaper and book sources in Dutch, but didn't bother with Google Translate, since the English sources make it clear that the company is notable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This business makes window hangings and blinds, I take it.  I think it's safe to assume that a source that calls its subject the world's leading anything is not really an independent source.  The presence of a completely original research and unverified corporate history suggests that conflicted editing.  No showing of the sort of significant impact on history, technology, or culture that would turn this from a merely successful business into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you can't discredit the NYT that easily. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, without a doubt. They're big, they're notable, they are Luxaflex, etc. Searching for sources is not so easy, but perusing Google News for "Hunter Douglas NV" brings up some relevant hits (also, this), one of which I've added to the article. Thank you Cullen, Drmies (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The article now has seven references to independent, reliable sources, and all the major claims in the corporate history are now verified. Smerdis of Tlön, when the New York Times calls a business "the world's leading" in its field, we must assume that their fact checkers researched and verified the claim. This is a public corporation and all their financial results are disclosed. Also, significant coverage differs from significant impact. The company began continuous casting of aluminum in the 1940s and that process did not become widespread until the 1950s. That innovation created a billion dollar fortune. I believe that the company is notable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 06:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As the NYT says, the most important company in its field. A careless nomination, showing the reason why people really need to search first before they nominate, as is recommended by policy. . Smerdis, we have standards for RSs, and no matter how rigorous we set them,  some sources will meet them.  corporate history is appropriate content for major histories, and, like any routine matter, independent sources for it are acceptable unless controversial or challenged.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - As shown above, reliable sources do exist to demonstrate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2013 (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.