Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vornado Air Circulation Systems


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Vornado Air Circulation Systems

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another procedural nom. I've just declined a speedy on this. To me, it doesn't currently meet WP:CORP; however, this is an article that's survived for four years (although the early version was not our most informative article), being edited by multiple editors none of whom seem to have had any problem with it. So bringing it over to the Unruly Mob for decision. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iride  scent  21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- I can find nothing to indicate notability except some stuff about a petty legal dispute with another company. This is particularly telling. There's lots of companies in the world. Most, including this one, just aren't notable. Reyk  YO!  00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, although a mention in an article on the original Vornado would probably be OK. That's gotta be notable (I have one that still works like a champ). Vornado Realty Trust is in fact a descendant of the original manufacturer. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Vornado corporate headquaters houses the Antique Fan Collectors Museum (secured, no idea why) supported by the Antique Fan Collectors Association. Ideally this article should provide coverage of the original 40s/50s Vornado company as well as the modern resurrection of the brand and any cultural preservation measures taken by the new company to establish the museum. No, I can't think of anything more boring than reading an article on the preservation, heritage, and modern marketing of household fans. Nonetheless, there's potential in this here stub. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article makes no claim of notability and provides no sources at all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2008 (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.