Talk:Elizabeth Suzann

Requested move 8 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no consensus to move. And it appears that the article has been updated since the beginning of the discussion to reflect the difference between the former company and the new company. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Elizabeth Suzann → Elizabeth Suzann Studio – company changed name Chrismartucci (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Happily888 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chrismartucci, DrVogel, Amakuru, BarrelProof, EdJohnston, and UtherSRG: queried move request Happily888 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Hi @Chrismartucci, the notability of that article is under scrutiny. I also note that this request is your only edit on Wikipedia so far. Would you please be able to comment? Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. I'm one of the owners of this company. The Wikipedia entry wasn't created by me, but it shows up in search results and some of the information was out of date (such as the name of the business now being "Elizabeth Suzann Studio"). I'm working on several SEO tasks, and one of them was to fix these errors. I made some corrections already as a guest, but I realized I needed to create an account to change the name of the entry, which is why I have very little activity here. However, I wouldn't mind if the page was simply deleted entirely because I agree, there's not much notable information there. Chrismartucci (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Chrismartucci: thanks for your comments, and welcome to Wikipedia. However, I should also advise you that it is generally not a good idea for individuals connected to an organisation to edit the article on that organisation. You can find more detail on this at WP:COI, but the fundamental point is that Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral and objective point of view, whereas if you're connected to the company and are invested in its success, it's hard for you to maintain that neutrality. On the specific point about the new company name, our policy here is at WP:NAMECHANGES. We don't automatically rename the article just because the company has changed its name, instead we evaluate reliable sources. I'm not seeing a huge amount of sourcing for the recent history of the company, and a lot of the coverage pertains to its earlier incarnation prior to 2020, so I'd probably think keeping the short name is best at this stage. In any case a full discussion is advisable. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  After studying this a bit, I suspect the "Studio" company is not actually a renamed continuation of the original company. It seems more likely that the original company was shut down, and the "Studio" company is a different enterprise launched 8 months later by the same founder. Is that correct? The founder says the "Studio" company "is the second chapter of my design story". If so, I wonder if it is really appropriate to assume that the topic of the article should be the current company rather than the previous one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  That is basically correct, though the differences between the companies essentially boils down to a different operational structure (e.g., number of employees, manufacturing using a factory in North Carolina rather than in-house), so “different enterprise” is potentially overstated. It is more accurately a company restructure. Also you are correct, there are not many external sources about these changes yet, most information is to be found internally on the website, mostly in the About page. Chrismartucci (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Please note that a discussion has been initiated to consider deletion of the article, as found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Suzann. You are welcome to comment there. The company website should be sufficient for sourcing of some aspects, per WP:ABOUTSELF, but may not be sufficient to determine the WP:COMMONNAME for article title purposes. However, I have created a "redirect" at "Elizabeth Suzann Studio" so that anything that searches for that name will land on the correct article. I have also done some editing of the article content, which you are welcome to study and comment about (e.g. on the article's Talk page or mine). It is likely that the discussion here will be deleted fairly soon, since this page is not really intended for hosting in-depth discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I would decline the technical move of Elizabeth Suzann to Elizabeth Suzann Studio. The Studio appears to be only a shadow of the original company, though it could eventually bounce back. Per the article, the Studio is "..staffed only by the founder and one assistant in a backyard workshop." This is after Suzann's prior company had a peak staff of 42 employees. The content of our article is mostly about the older, larger company even though that company is no longer operating. The earlier company is also the one that received the press coverage. The prior company can be notable even if it is now historic. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, partly per the previous discussion quoted above: There is now a redirect in place for anyone looking for the other name. The WP:COMMONNAME of the brand has probably not changed, and much of the branding shown on the website is stylized to often put "Studio" on a separate line of text and in a different script to visually emphasize only "Elizabeth Suzann" (and the email address on the "Contact Us" page doesn't include "studio"). The period of primary notability for the subject was before the "Studio", and the "Studio" is not exactly a renamed continuing enterprise but rather a new company with the same founder. Wikipedia does not emphasize current news over historical events. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose based on discussion above. The notable entity appears to be the entity at its former name. BD2412 T 17:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

Company is still active

The company restructured after Covid, briefly operating under the name “Elizabeth Suzann Studio,” (see prior discussion about moving the page) but Elizabeth Suzann is still very much an active company, still operating under the original name “Elizabeth Suzann,” as you can see here: https://elizabethsuzann.com/ Chrismartucci (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)