Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polypropylene stacking chair

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polypropylene stacking chair

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

Possibly copied over from another site, therefore possibly copyright infringement. Subject doesn't look notable either. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As is, the article is a bit weak; however, these things are everywhere (i.e. meets WP:N). Location (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have enhanced with further info from other sources. This is a design classic - could be moved to the Robin Day page itself though if more appropriate?. Liquidstockings (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article borrows from several sources, and should probably be reworded to avoid copyright issues, but on the whole the subject appears notable -- the chair has won design awards and does appear just about everywhere. It is interesting to note that such mundane objects require design and that those mundane designs are also recognized and awarded. If sufficient material for a standalone article can't be developed over time, the article may be proposed for merger, but I think it should be allowed to grow for a while first. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In its current form its inadequate, but the chair is a ubiquitous part of modern life. i know i have read articles on its environmental impact and the destruction of other chair industries, and the dominance of China in the market, so there is sure to be some good material out there for a fuller article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because good sources exists that can be used to fix up this stub. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 19 August 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.