Talk:Humanscale

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

False advertisement?

I've noticed that not one reference here shows that Humanscale chairs are good for health. There is not even any evidence given to show that they are better than average! Until this is done, surely we should be saying "allegedly" in front of each claim? (eg "The chair was considered revolutionary for its internal counterbalance mechanism that allegedly supports the user’s body at all points during recline")

Proposed merge with Niels Diffrient

MERGE

Current sources used in the article are either self-published by the company, or are mainly on the topic of the designer, not the company. The single oppose vote below makes a reference to WP:BASIC, which is about notability of people: there's no use in demonstrating that a company passes a "notability of people" guideline. On numbers: 66% support a merge, with a total of three participants. The latter is rather low after the long period of this being open, but probably rather indicative of low notability of the company separated from its driving force. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

easy merge Light2021 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one even participated. Seems like you are in hurry, closing all me Merge template as No Consensus, whereas many others Merge template exists for years. How is is no consensus? Explain?Light2021 (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the merge templates and reopened this discussion, because 30 days have not passed yet. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that you randomly coming to my every participation and making a close without giving substantial thoughts or logic. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Upon consideration, and source searches, Niels Diffrient meets WP:BASIC, thus qualifying for a standalone article. Disclosure: I initially closed this merge discussion, but erred, as thirty days had not passed at that time, so I reopened it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--A merge is all good.Winged Blades^Godric 16:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.