Talk:Verdanagate

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Time article

Is this article non-notable? then why there is whole TIME article about it - http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1919127,00.html ?

I agree, the title is terrible (verdanagate? wtf?)

I don't think the name is that ridiculous. Turning it into a '-gate' style scandal name is a bit tongue-in-cheek yes, but to the passionate, fuming design community and people at the heart of the controversy, it definately is a scandal of '-gate' proportions. Just because it's a font at the start of the name doesn't mean it's ridiculous. It identifies the root and immensity of the issue perfectly. --Chris Fizik (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A sidebar in Time qualifies the article as Wiki-worthy? About as much as the two sentences about my Dixie Chicks fansite in 2001 qualifies me as famous. Will anyone outside the advertising industry even remember this in a year, or even in a month? I would have suggested this article for Speedy Delete. But don't despair -- it's perfectly suited to an Uncyclopedia article. --Robertb-dc (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with the delete sentiment, this might belong as a note in the IKEA article but nothing like this. The author-invented name for the 'controversy' doesn't exactly make it better. --Joffeloff (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title is terrible, except that is how I found the article - because that is how the matter is being referred to. It is certainly notable enough for an article. It is being covered in major newspapers and magazines. The substance of the story is the role of typefaces and design in the modern commercial world, in particular the difficulties of corporate redesign. Anyone studying those questions would expect to find on wikipedia what wikipedia does best: give a basic introduction to a subject, a sense of the debate surrounding it, and links for further research. Not trivial, definitely notable enough. Tsinfandel (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FTW

Aren’t things out there that matter more? I’m terribly sorry, but this article should not exist. 92.229.246.52 (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should exist, not necessarily as an own article, but it should still exist, as some people may hear of it and wonder what it is. Is the size of Wikipedia limited? --Christoffre (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

While some claims of notability have been made for this article (see the references), I don't think there's enough to say about it to justify a separate article. This is just a brief news story, not a major event; it deserves a few lines in the IKEA article, at most. (The name is pretty silly as well, but that's a tangential issue.) Please comment on this merger below. Robofish (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make it so. Plrk (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. The reasons for merging seem wrong, somehow. The article has survived a proposed deletion, due to the work Tsinfandel has done on it. If there is an article on something, by definition, it is notable. Adding a line to the IKEA article does not equate to a merge and I wouldn't add more than one line to the IKEA article. Sunray (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge.(And a very selective merge at that) It deserves brief mention here, and nothing more.It gives vastly undue weight to such a minor aspect of the company to blow up a type-font change into a separate article forever. It is just not that important, in the grand scheme of things, when a retail company makes some little change in its ads, its store design, its shopping bags, or its type font. And, no, the mere existence of an article about something does not establish that the subject is notable. Ans "surviving" a PROD just means someone removed the PROD notice. Edison (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Personally I think this article is absolutely ridiculous and should be deleted, but as it somehow survived that, I would support a merge into the main IKEA article, with about 3 lines at the most, for the same reasons as Edison. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. The Leprechaun speaks for me in this case...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. Seriously, this is a flash-in-the-pan. This article epitomises why we have WP:NOTNEWS. Fences&Windows 23:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Please. Plrk (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]