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. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of major home appliance manufacturers[edit]

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

This is a list that has been around for some time. There is no evidence of any notability for such a list. The title is ambiguous in meaning (what is "major"? What is a "home appliance"?). Until very recently it included many appliance companies simply on the basis that they had a web-site. Specifically excluded by WP:DIRECTORY . Adds no value to the encyclopaedia Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See major appliance and home appliance; these are apparently notable and thus definable topics. Note though that the corresponding category is Category:Home appliance manufacturers, so perhaps this should be renamed to match that. But regardless, I'm not really seeing any reason for deletion as this is an index of articles per WP:LISTPURP (and, actually, per the intro to WP:DIRECTORY). postdlf (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please also refer to WP:NOTESAL and WP:AOAL. The list itself is not required to be notable, just the group as a whole. The lede paragraph makes it clear what is intended to be included in the list or not. Some amibugity in the English grammar in the title seems to be a problem for some to parse correctly. The word major as it is used here is a modifier of appliance, not manufacturers. Changing the title to leave out the word major would completely change the intentionally narrow focus of the list. Including all home appliances would add any company that make anything from toasters to mixers to blenders, etc. and then it would have to be expanded to perhaps five to ten times as long and balloon completely out of control and be entirely unmanageable. This list was originally split out from the Brands section of the article Major appliance and is linked from there. There has been some discussion in the past of changing the title to attempt to remove the ambiguity but there was never any follow up. The only proposal that seemed to me to fit was List of manufacturers of major home appliances. I recommend immediately closing this Rfd and then starting a discussion on the article's talk page about the title if it causing people confusion. Nyth 63 22:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also re-added all the entries that were removed. Please see WP:NOTESAL, specifically, the statement: individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Nyth 63 23:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY which is further confirmed by dozens of ext links in the article body. WP:PROMO possibly applies, along with WP:OR as it's unclear who defines which manufacturer is "major" and which one is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, it does NOT fall under DIRECTORY as it does not meet any of the criteria in that list. It does not contain any genealogical information, phone numbers or contact names, upcoming events, pricing or retail availability, etc. DIRECTORY would actually be an argument AGAINST deletion in this case. Links to websites does not constitute a directory as almost all articles about any type of business has a link to an Official Website. For the entries in the list that do not have articles, they are more akin to a substitute for a redlink, which indicates potential notability. Nyth 63 11:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- including a link right into the list is exactly WP:DIRECTORY, to enable ppl to get product information. This is different from including the web site of a company that is a subject of a stand-alone article. The WP:PROMO part is including a non notable company (without an article on WP) and then providing a link to their web site, such as the case of

Caple

cookers

dishwashers

hobs, etc

[Link to web site]

....and many more. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still incorrect. Links are not inclusion. The list does NOT include pricing, therefore it is not a directory. Also, you generally cannot buy the appliances directly from the manufactures and nearly all those sites are not set up for retail service or include pricing anyway. Nyth 63 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the links and removing nonnotable entries are easy issues for cleanup, not arguments for deleting the list as a whole. On that, you've only questioned what "major" means, which had already been addressed above (and it does not mean a "major manufacturer" as you claimed above). postdlf (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to remove non-notable entries. Please see WP:NOTESAL, specifically, the statement: individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Nyth 63 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point was just that it's irrelevant to deletion. I have no opinion ultimately on whether any of those particular entries should be removed. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- you are welcome to remove the links and the non-notable entities; until then, there's still an impression that the list exists for promotional purposes and should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no such "impression" because we do not delete content because of fixable problems. This is clear from policy at WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, not to mention WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the article as it stands as a WP:PROMO for non-notable manufacturers, and should be deleted. The notability of this list topic is marginal, and PROMO outweighs its usefulness to the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you're focusing on the article "as it stands" is exactly what I was responding to above. postdlf (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)::[reply]
Comment I do not see how WP:PROMO applies here. If anything, that section seems to argue that this list is NOT promotional.

There is no ADVOCACY here of any one manufacturer over any other. It is a list of name sorted alphabetically. No mention of market share or product quality.
There are no OPINIONS given in the list.
There is no SCANDAL MONGERING.
There is no SELF PROMOTION. None of the recentent editors appear to have any POV evident and every manufacturer is listed on an equal basis.
There is no ADVERTISING, MARKETING or PUBLIC RELATIONS. It looks to me to be rather free of puffery.

As stated by another commentor previously, the lists themselves are not required to be notable, and all that is required is the notability of the TOPIC, which has already been demonstrated by the existence of articles such as major appliance and home appliance. Furthermore, the purpose of a list is not necessarily just for notability on it's own. If you refer to WP:LISTPURP, ONE possible criteria to establish a list would be for navigation: Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. This seems to easily fall under that use. Additionally, even if all of the articles linked are all listed in the same CATEGORY (and I have not checked on that yet), lists are useful because as it states in the MOS: Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two formats work together. Yet another reason that this list should be included in Wikipedia. Also see WP:NOTDUP about this. Nyth 63 21:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Category:Home appliance manufacturers includes manufactures of all sizes of appliances, not just major appliances. Nyth 63 21:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coatrack, and it duplicates existing Category:Home appliance manufacturers.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note-the above cherry-picking from AOAL is astonishing given the corollary DOAL states "5. Can become bogged down with entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia." and "6. Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#5 is never a reason for deletion as explained above (entries that consensus determines are inappropriate can simply be removed), nor has there even been an argument that any entries presently in the list "cannot be reliably sourced". And even if #6 applied here, the solution is generally to convert into a list of lists by splitting the master list into sublist (note that we do list people by country generally in just that manner). postdlf (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, directory-type content, we are not the Yellow Pages. Also no sources establishing notability of the topic. Sandstein 16:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This list is not encyclopaedic. Essentially, every single article about a "major appliance" manufacturer would end up here - along with the external links. A list needs to have some selection criteria. If a list of all such companies is required, simply use the category. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2016 (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.