Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jentique Furniture Ltd


 * 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 delete. Tone 07:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Jentique Furniture Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 10:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 10:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Google Books shows a snippet from Investors Chronicle in 1982 which commented "Jentique furniture, has been in a sad state for years, due simply to poor demand". In itself that would be insufficient to demonstrate notability, though (and presents a contrast with the tone of the unsourced page content). AllyD (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: The company's lifespan preceded digital media, but even allowing for that, something more is needed for WP:NCORP than occasional passing mentions. A merge with the Metamec article might be an option, as they appear to have been part of the same group, but that would again need some of the solid sourcing which is wanting. Add to that the catalogue-ish tone of much of the current article ("there exists a small but devoted band of Jentique ash furniture collectors", "an affordable collectors' item prized for being attractive, well-made pieces", etc.) and I am not seeing that this article can be sustained here. AllyD (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2019 (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.

Very poor, rushed deletion. Deleting the parent company for Metamec, then suggesting that the parent company might merit a comment on the subsidiary's page is a bit nonsensical. This should not have been a speedy delete candidate. Neith-Nabu (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)