Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frutiger Aero

: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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. WP:SNOW. Any content dispute should be resolved on the talk page, not here. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

=[[:Frutiger Aero]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Frutiger Aero}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Frutiger Aero}})

This was nominated for deletion by User:Seocwen. To avoid confusion, I want to clarify: Seocwen put the AFD tag on the page, but did not create the discussion, so I started this discussion on their behalf. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Some of the sources are a bit lower-quality than I'd like, but that's no reason to delete the article. It passes GNG like Di said, exemplified by its mention in The Guardian (even if they did mischaracterize it as a screensaver style). Bowler the Carmine | talk 07:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :How does it pass GNG? Make a case if you're going to assert something controversial. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::Given the proportion of keep !votes here, I doubt the claim the article passes GNG is "controversial", but here is my case.
  • ::The General Notability Guideline is:
  • ::{{bq|A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.}}
  • ::Let's apply it to this article.
  • ::When a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article, the subject is assumed to deserve its own article unless editors come to a consensus otherwise. The consensus here in this deletion discussion (as of now) is that Frutiger Aero does deserve its own article.
  • ::Significant coverage is...eh, I'll stop restating WP:GNG now. Multiple articles solely about Frutiger Aero are significant coverage.
  • ::As for reliable sources, we've got Dazed and Creative Bloq (those are the ones I'm familiar with) which are quite diligent when it comes to the arts, and The Guardian, which is The Guardian. I'm not familiar with the other sources cited, but I trust my fellow editors.
  • ::None of these sources created Frutiger Aero (inasmuch that Frutiger Aero can be said to be "created") or named it (that would be CARI), so we can comfortably consider them independent. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::Wikipedia is not a democracy. Getting a fan club together to vote in favor of hoaxes and misinformation is not supposed to carry water. Furthermore, a single mention of a fad or trend in a good newspaper like the Guardian does not make something in itself notable. Also, don't trust your fellow editors - if you're getting involved do your job a peer reviewer.
  • :::Did you read the Re-Edition article? It is very plainly stated and obvious that the term was created and defined by Sofi Lee, a contributor to CARI - which is just an online community, not a reliable source. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::::You're right that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is based on consensus. You are literally the only person who holds your opinion on this article. The consensus seems to be that you're just wrong. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::::Wikipedia is not a democracy. Getting a fan club together to vote in favor of hoaxes and misinformation is not supposed to carry water. Also it is not a consensus if there is disagreement, by definition. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::::::There is no "fan club". Everyone in this thread is a normal editor. You're just wrong. That is the consensus. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::::::A bit of friendly advice: it may be time to step away for a bit. Bowler the Carmine | talk 22:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::::::Seconding Bowler. Di, you can disagree with this editor without resorting to this approach to the conversation — we don't need to go there. Seocwen, for your part, please refrain from making accusations of foul play against your fellow editors and assume good faith. I am not here because I'm part of a "{{tq|fan club}}" or "{{tq|pushing an agenda}}", but because I believe this article would be an improvement to the encyclopedia if it existed, and I think the same applies to the other participants of this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::::::::After the number of times I've been reverted, in the entirety, without discussion, and without any consideration of the individual contributions I've made, it feels like a stretch of logic to assume good faith. I'm sorry that's the case, but I can't trust people setting my work on fire and then refusing even to talk about it. I recognize that my language has been unduly harsh at times, but I have not found the atmosphere collegial and that impacts my ability to communicate at my best. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::::If Frutiger Aero is a hoax, perhaps deleting the article is counterproductive. Wikipedia has many articles about hoaxes, which make it abundantly clear that the subject is a hoax, and have reliable sources disproving it. If you have reliable sources disproving Frutiger Aero as a genuine phenomenon, we can rework the article to incorporate this contrary evidence. But simply deleting the article would be counterproductive either way.
  • ::::On another node, as Di said (a bit indelicately), this seems to be a one-against-many situation. What may help you right now is reading the essay I linked and following its advice. Bowler the Carmine | talk 22:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::::Believe me, if the article does stay, I would strongly advocate for it to be rewritten. I have already attempted to rewrite it to be more accurate, but my edits just get reverted and without discussion. As to evidence - the original authors maintain that their cultural commentator sources are automatically legitimate and the onus is on me to "disprove them with evidence," whereas the cultural commentator source evidence I have provided as a refutation are deemed automatically unacceptable and dismissed out of hand. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::::::If the "cultural commentator source" you're referring to is the JJ McCullough YouTube video that you tried to add, it has already been explained that the video is not reliable because it is a user-generated video with no editorial oversight. It's literally just some random guy's opinion. It's quite bizarre that you consider the sources in the article to be "blogs" but you tried to add a video blog. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::::::Wikipedia considers a YouTube video published on a personal channel a self-published source and therefore not reliable. If you wish to give sources to back up your claims, make sure that the sources you give are acceptable under Wikipedia's reliable source policy.
  • ::::::Additionally, your comment about what you would do if the article stayed suggests to me that you think the article can be salvaged. In that case, this is definitely not the forum you should take your concerns to. If you wish to keep advocating for deletion however, you should read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::::::Fine. The independent journalist with nearly a million subscribers isn't good enough, but an anonymous rump of an article from the ilk of Re-Edition magazine is. The TV journalist who interviewed the likely next Canadian prime-minister is of no consequence to Wikipedia, but Natalie Fear of Creative Bloq is. I mean, if that's Wikipedia's policy what more can I say other than I believe that's a ridiculous, bad, dismissive, and overly bureaucratic policy I don't agree with and know you won't care. Do I need to get a contributor to Peculiar Mormyrid to write about this? Or will it be the "your magazine isn't good as my magazine" kind of thing?
  • :::::::The fact that I believe the article's contents are best addressed on the Microsoft Aero already , where the distinction between it and the Frutiger Aero microgenre is more clear, does not mean that, if I were forced to accept the independent status of the page, I would not want it to be accurate. One does not follow from the other. You could argue a merge proposal would be more appropriate, but the key information is already present on the Microsoft Aero page so I believe there would be very little actual merging going on. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::::::::With all due respect, this is not the place to debate Wikipedia policy. For the sake of the discussion, please take your policy concerns to the village pump, and on this page please make arguments based on the policies as they are written now. Bowler the Carmine | talk 01:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::::::::I can indeed take those concerns up in that venue. Notwithstanding the subject of discussion is a contemporary neologism describing the a retrospective aesthetic conceptualization. The kind of "editorial" oversight you are pointing to hardly pertains when the entire subject of discussion is opinion. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not pass GNG - ie. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Most of the sources cited are fashion blogs dedicated to contemporary aesthetics and qualify as neither reliable nor notable sources. Even the genuine news sources are essentially brief reports on a fad or trend. I think it would probably be enough to place a mention on Microgenre along with the other nostalgia aesthetics, but in any case, the mention on The Windows Aero page is clear and accurate about its relationship to Fruitger Aero. Windows Aero was itself "the design language introduced in the Microsoft Windows Vista operating system." It is a well-established part of the Windows Vista brand. Frutiger Aero is a recent coinage, from 2017, signifying a retrospective look at Windows Aero and similar. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :The National, The Guardian, Re-Edition Magazine and Dazed are all blogs? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::I have addressed the Guardian. Please make a real response there. And no, Dazed is not a journal of record. I have personally published magazines of that caliber. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::Nobody is saying that all the sources are journals of record but that isn't actually the requirement for WP:Reliable sources on Wikipedia, that would be editorial oversight. You'll find plenty of magazines of that sort on on WP:RSP. This is the reason blogs, YouTube videos and other WP:SPS are not RS because they are don't have editorial oversight. You'll note that you first claimed that the articles sources were mostly blogs and then when asked to explain how published magazines with an editorial staff was a blog, you switched the question to be about {{tq|journal[s] of record}}. So I'll ask again: how are the above listed sources blogs as you originally claimed. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::::Blogs are opinion pieces with very little oversight posted online, whether by a group or individual. Whether that group has a name with something like "Research Institute" in it, and whether it produces a print copy does not make it independent or reliable. Many such website exists that amount to little more than cliques. Seems to me that if Peculiar Mormyrid magazine printed a piece criticising the term, it would be immediately rejected regardless of how well-research or articulate it was. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::::Can you please list the sources that you consider to be "fashion blogs"? Di (they-them) (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::::Except the "Consumer Aesthetics Research Institute" (which I assume your alluding to here) isn't cited in the article. Reliable sources are. We fundamentally trust RSs more than editors own judgment (and have for 20 yrs). Of course more reliable sources may come along and change the balance of the articles tone. But again that is not an argument for deletion (I will, for a third time, link WP:NOTCLEANUP in hopes you might click it this time) Please stop having content discussions unrelated to the AFD.
  • :::::{{tq|Blogs are opinion pieces with very little oversight posted online}}, and your evidence that say Dazed, a lifestyle magazine [https://www.dazeddigital.com/contact with an editorial team], and [https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/58103/1/what-is-frutiger-aero-aesthetic-tiktok-msn-messenger-windows-vista-noughties whose article isn't listed] as an opinion piece fits your definition here? And then maybe do that for all the other articles your out of hand dismissing as blogs here. Many thanks in advance. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::::Moreover, the most glaring issues with the article is that it represents descriptor of a history which does not exist. It is misinformation. It in is an invented neologism and concept from 2017. In the 19th Century, colonial scholars invented the notion of an Oriental Style - doing so did not make such a style exist since, the art and culture of Turkey, India, China, Japan, etc., were never "one thing." What we report now is on "Orientalism," - the nonsense in itself. The concept of Frutiger Aero is similarly nonsense because it imputes onto existing and real brand guides of the early 20's a kind of Utopian aesthetic master plan or vision, which is false. You can read real sources about what Windows Aero or Mac Aqua were about. How do you dismiss the evidence of actual design history?
  • ::::Based on the tone I've received so far in the comments I fully expect you to dismiss this very basic obvious factual evidence as "original research" on my part. To have any reason not to agree would be "original research." The better articles like the Guardian report on Frutiger Aero as a contemporary retrospective aesthetic, not a historical one, but of course, the editors here refuse to abide by that editorial direction because they are pushing an agenda. Fine - if you believe Frutiger Aero is verifiable, explain to me what would prove to you that it represents a mistaken understanding of design history? For my part - show me one Art History Scholar that confirms the claims being made here and I'll shut up and go away. I maintain that it is sufficient to add to the Frutiger Aero section of Windows Aero to note a minor pop culture fad in the present inspired by the operating system. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::::"show me one Art History Scholar that confirms the claims being made here and I'll shut up and go away" - That's not how it works. You're the one making controversial claims that go against consensus, the burden of proof lies on you. If you think Frutiger Aero is a hoax and does not exist, prove it with reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep this seems to stem from a content dispute between {{u|Seocwen}} and {{u|Di (they-them)}}, which is not what AFD is for, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. In terms of actual arguments this seems to pass WP:GNG, Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :The basis of the article in reliability, notability, and original research is what's in dispute. It is not verifiable. Please address the talk page. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::This is the deletion discussion so I expect, as somebody who wants to delete the article, that you will address the claims about sousing and GNG (a question quite separate from what the article says, per WP:NOTCLEANUP) here. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::If you could tone down the inaccessible acronyms and jargon for just a second (apologies, they don't teach wikipedia in grad school) what is sousing?
  • :::As to GNG, my issues, per the guideline, are with presumed and Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::::I believe "sousing" to be a typo of "sourcing". Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::Sorry, got cut off.
  • :::As to GNG, my issues, per the guideline, it is noted that coverage must be significant and reliable. That a named online group would publish an individually authored article does not meet the criteria for significance or reliability. Moreover, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". That aesthetics wiki would publish such an article does not mean Wikipedia must. Moreover, it's noted the sources should be secondary sources, not anything like Sofi Lee who made the term up, and the others who are attempting to create, define, and control it. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::::All of the sources in the article are secondary. Sofi Lee did not write or contribute any of them in any way. Just because you don't agree with the term being used doesn't mean that these sources aren't reliable or secondary. As for "indiscriminate information", there is none of that in the article. Everything is backed up by sources and relevant to the subject. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily passes the general notability guideline and editorial issues such as the reliability of sources can be discussed (and are being discussed) on the talk page, not at AfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sources 2, 5 and 6 are RS per Source Highlighter, so we should have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :For the sake of clarity, which sources are these? Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::The Guardian, Dazed and Pop. The last two have been evaluated as RS prior to being added to the database in Source Highlighter, so they pass the sniff test. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

:Keep, per above- sourcing is lower quality than preferred but the subject is generally notable Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. Despite claims above, precisely zero of the article's sources are 'fashion blogs'. - MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: And here's a journal coverage of the concept [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13548565241270669] for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :That's neat! We should save that for improving the article. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ::{{Done}}; added a further reading section with this paper and another essay. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • :::I also found that Artnodes one, but I couldn't open it. Good catch. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.