Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microtech Knives
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was keep; nomination withdrawn.--Kubigula (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Microtech Knives
Article tone and content is largely approbatory (i.e. written as an advertisement). No real claimed notability (possible speedy?) and no significant third party sources (only local office of economic development to support employees – even there, article and source have opposing numbers). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn - Although still slightly approbatory, concerns warranting deletion have been addressed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy G11. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- You need to put the search term in quotes (i.e. "Microtech Knives"), like this. 7 hits, none of which "address the subject directly in detail" (the WP:N significant coverage requirement). Further this does not address the G11 issue. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 15:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- G11 is gibberish. This is the English Wikipedia. And my search is just fine, turning up evidence of notability like "For the past 10 years, Micro Tech has set the industry standard for quality and ... One of the most impressive aspects of Tichbourne's custom knives are the...". Colonel Warden (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- You need to put the search term in quotes (i.e. "Microtech Knives"), like this. 7 hits, none of which "address the subject directly in detail" (the WP:N significant coverage requirement). Further this does not address the G11 issue. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 15:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is pure spam. Ros0709 (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The article isn't overtly spammy, but it does read like a marketing brochure, there are no other articles in Wikipedia linking to this article, and there aren't enough news articles mentioning Mircrotech knives to make the company notable enough for WP:CORP. —XSG 23:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep – The company is notable and well known in the Law enforcement and Outdoor sportsmen arenas. You can find articles about the company's knifes in such magazines as American Sportsman, Outdoor Sportsman and other such type publication, which are not included in Google News archives, but are read by hundred of thousands of individuals. Shoessss | Chat 14:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - While the article really needs to be cleaned up so as to not read like an advertisement (topics include company's creation and founding, items manufactured without such overt trumpeting, legal issues), I think the company is still notable, just like Gerber Legendary Blades, which is another well known knife and tool maker. Mind, in pop culture, Microtech is more infamous in some regards. For instance, in 24 (TV series) (first season), the protagonist (a federal agent) encounters a man who had concealed a Microtech switchblade in his car. He disarms him, and recognizes both the make and model of the knife ("Microtech H.A.L.O. II"), and notes how suspicious it is that a corporate bloke would have such an expensive knife that is primarily designed for killing.Legitimus (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This article could be cleaned up and helped, I'll even work on it, myself to improve it.--Mike Searson (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your edits have greatly improved the article. I’m still concerned, however, that the article still doesn’t assert importance (which is distinct from notability) per CSD A7. Consulting with other knife makers and a mention on 24 seem to be the closest assertions, but still fall short of the “importance or significance” threshold. Did any of their designs influence the industry? Do their sales/revenues establish them as a significant player in the industry? We know that they market themselves as “high end”, but is that how the industry perceives them? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking as a knife collector, MT is an important company. They literally changed the perception of the "Automatic knife" from a cheap imported weapon of gang members, etc to a precision piece of equipment used by the military, etc. Marifone's background was working for Reed Knight as a weapon designer (firearms) and based on his ability to use a CNC machine became a knifemaker overnight (some of his original designs are worth thousands). The company is currently putting most of its attention on a firearm project, so this may come under the attention of Wikiproject Firearms. Yes, I'm looking for some older articles that detail how close their maching tolerances are 10 thousandths of an inch...so they do have manufacturing standards set very high. All that being said, the company is not without its controversies, (for example selling "rare models" for up to $1,000 and then a year later releasing them priced in the low hundreds) I'm personally not a huge fan, but they do have their place in the tactical knife industry.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ha, sounds like Apple Inc. of the knife world (but that's another discussion). Ultimately, the AfD is about the article, not the topic. The topic certainly seems significant/notable, so if you could find a reference to the “transformation of opinions”, the article would follow suit. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking as a knife collector, MT is an important company. They literally changed the perception of the "Automatic knife" from a cheap imported weapon of gang members, etc to a precision piece of equipment used by the military, etc. Marifone's background was working for Reed Knight as a weapon designer (firearms) and based on his ability to use a CNC machine became a knifemaker overnight (some of his original designs are worth thousands). The company is currently putting most of its attention on a firearm project, so this may come under the attention of Wikiproject Firearms. Yes, I'm looking for some older articles that detail how close their maching tolerances are 10 thousandths of an inch...so they do have manufacturing standards set very high. All that being said, the company is not without its controversies, (for example selling "rare models" for up to $1,000 and then a year later releasing them priced in the low hundreds) I'm personally not a huge fan, but they do have their place in the tactical knife industry.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your edits have greatly improved the article. I’m still concerned, however, that the article still doesn’t assert importance (which is distinct from notability) per CSD A7. Consulting with other knife makers and a mention on 24 seem to be the closest assertions, but still fall short of the “importance or significance” threshold. Did any of their designs influence the industry? Do their sales/revenues establish them as a significant player in the industry? We know that they market themselves as “high end”, but is that how the industry perceives them? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
