Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdanagate

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. "Keep" in the sense of "do not hit the delete button." Opinions differ about whether this should be retained as a separate article or merged (and where to?), but that is a matter for continued talk page discussion. I predict that this will be seen as "old news" in time and merged somewhere, probably before they switch to Comic Sans in 2010. Sandstein 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verdanagate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely non-notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and this isn't news anyway. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to IKEA. There seems to be a few examples of coverage in reliable sources, but this is classic slow-news-day news that probably warrants a sentence or two in IKEA at the most - spinning it out into a genuine "controversy" seems to border on original research, I'm not seeing that level of dismay in the reliable sources cited. Serious WP:NOTNEWS. ~ mazca ^talk 13:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to IKEA Catalogue. Propaniac (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, agree with Propaniac. Also note that this title is a neologism that is doomed never to achieve currency, given the slight scope of the "event" it refers to. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious: Look at all that mainstream coverage (2030 ghits for verdanagate; 121,000 ikea verdana; over 70 gnews hits), but probably best covered in IKEA with a redirect. --Milowent (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at worst, possibly keep. The article title is ridiculous, but the event/controversy appears notable enough. Ordinarily I'd see this as an obvious merge, but when the NYTimes coverage is a prominently displayed piece by one of the paper's major cultural critics (Edward Rothstein), a separate article isn't out of the question. Might be better to just wait and revisit the question in a month or two, to see if there's any durable impact. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (selectively merge) to Ikea, as called for in the [Talk:Verdanagate#Merge proposal|merger proposal]] on the talk page of the article. The topic deserves mention in the Ikea article. The first choice when a company is in the news, is to add that event to the company's article. There is really not that much that needs to be said about this. There was some reaction to the change from "the typography community" which was noted by some mainstream news sources, but per WP:NOTNEWS this does not require a permanent encyclopedia article on the brief news flurry. Edison (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge at worst. The article title is what the matter is known as. Significant for anyone interested in corporate redesign. Tsinfandel (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, merge at worst. The matter was widely covered by several sectors of society, including the business community, academia, and as shown by the references, by the mainstream press in both the US and the UK. Time, The Guardian and The New York Times are all serious enough not to waste their valuable space with mere "slow-news-day" trivia.--Technopat (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.