Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:12, 2 April 2012

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. Courcelles 23:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Articles for deletion/Ernest Emerson
• Articles for deletion/Ernest Emerson (2nd nomination)

Ernest Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I'm missing some tags or something. This is complicated and frustrating. Please fix it for me. This is regarding the page "Ernest Emerson". This page is a blatant advertisement for this person's custom knife making business. This page was nominated for deletion a few years ago and whomever decided to keep it based his opinion on the false claim that you can't buy the knives anymore hence it was not advertising. Please take a look at the original debate and see that for yourself. That was a lie because you can buy the knives and a massive inventory of other items from that person's website here http://www.emersonknives.com/ There isn't a single reason for that person to have a wikipedia page. The bio info about him inventing stuff are "substantiated" by links to magazines well known to post paid advertisement articles and pages that do no exist.--powermugu-powermugu

link to first afd (which i'm putting here like this because i don't want to try to figure out how to make it show up like it's supposed to. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment whoever closed it based it on consensus, its a foreign concept to some. Maybe its a language barrier but USPTO is not a magazine --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

KEEP. Subject is notable as evidenced by the large body of secondary sources. Article is a featured article and has been thoroughly vetted before a single purpose account created this nomination. Nominator has not even raised a single concern on the article's talk page. Just because the subject owns a knife company does not make it advertising. There is no need to call anyone liars.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• keep — i am already biased against articles on businesses and their founders, but if this guy and his company are not independently notable, i don't know who would be. this article is close to a model for how smaller business bios ought to be written. it has some peacock language in it, yes (there ought to be a rule against mentioning that people were born in log cabins, seriously), and the tone is irritating in places, but it's a good solid article, well supplied with third-party sources, on a notable person. this should be obvious. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

KEEP. Article is a non-biased and is a good solid article on an extremely notable person in the industry as well as community, backed by multiple quality third party sources. --nevermas 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

KEEP -subject is a definitive contributor and notable pioneer in the tactical and military knife industry. Article is more than reliably sourced, and sources are accurate and relevant. Deleting articles like this with respect to tactical knife history is is equivalent to deleting articles on Steve Jobs or Bill Gates with respect to Computers. --Gusstrand (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

KEEP. Reason 1 — The assertion that it is a lie that these knives are available on the Subject's website is spurious. The knives classed as "Pre-tactical models", "Viper Knives" and "Specwar Knives" are not available for sale anywhere on the website that I can find. Under the section "Emerson Knives, Inc", the models Tomahawk, or CQC-T, Commander, SARK and CQC-7 are available, but I note that the article discusses them in terms of unique origins/blade geometries making them highly significant and appropriate for inclusion in the article. Reason 2 — The development of unique blade geometries and other design elements, i.e. the "Wave", is ground-breaking and of historical significance, certainly worthy of inclusion. Reason 3 — The Subject has demonstrably had a significant impact on the development and field deployment of "tactical" knives in the military and law enforcement fields. This would seem to be worthy of inclusion as a matter of historical posterity. Reason 4 — The Subject has developed a unique martial arts system. Tracing events which helped to develop this system, as well as unique elements of the system itself, is highly relevant. Reason 5 — The appearance of several of the Subject's knife designs in novels and films was quite fascinating and relevant to illustrating the Subject's impact and influence within the SpecWar community, such that it is now being emulated in multiple fiction media. Reason 6 — The list of citations and notes are exhaustive and impressive. This article appears to have been extraordinarily well-researched. In conclusion — The reasons for keeping this article about a Subject who has had a revolutionary impact in multiple areas would seem to be self-evident and precisely what Misplaced Pages was designed to promulgate. — Railpatch (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep While I am not particularly impressed by the article and some of the sourcing appears dubious at first glance, I do not believe his notability is in question. The fact that the article seems an advertisement is not a valid reason for deletion, as it can be fixed through normal editing. Yoenit (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

KEEP Sources are accurate and reliable, the author is reputable, and the subject matter is not spurious, but rather a nicely written biography of a notable person. The information was obviously well researched, and contains data that is not available anywhere else. I find this attempt at deletion to be farcical. --Jiminpotomac (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

KEEP I've checked and rechecked the sources over the last few days, and in a nutshell, everything is accurate, and the sources are verifiable (to wit, deleting the article does not have any merit whatsoever) --Jon Svoboda Sept 1, 2011 15:29 EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Svoboda (talk • contribs) 19:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

After being accused of being a sock puppet, I will respond that this article meets AND EXCEEDS all necessary requirements including the revered WP:V and the deletion request is merely a personal attack on what appears to be the original author and the subject. I use this page to refer collectors and inquiries to very frequently. The page is a definitive resource. --Still a human, Gusstrand (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - If there are specific issues with the tone of the article then that is something that needs editting and not the deletion of the article. The article is about a knife makes so of course there will be material written about his works. That doesn't make the article an advert. If there are facts about the person that are incorrect, then they can be corrected. Again, that does not call for deleting the entire article. I see nothing in the nomination reasoning that requires the article to be deleted. And if there are any unvoiced concerns about notability, the ample sourcing about him including stuff like this Malaysia Star article about collectors lusting after his product pretty much settles any issues of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep - I am not a sock puppet. Not in the least. To get back on track again, the sources are reliable, and the article is accurate. It would seem that someone doesn't particularly care for the subject matter the article pertains to -- Jon Svoboda (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC) *Comment – Some people have various beliefs about how Misplaced Pages should exist as. See Association of Deletionist Wikipedians and Exclusionism.Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear to everyone, per person you get one vote (bolded "keep" or "delete"). You can add more comments if you want, but dont vote again. Yoenit (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Some people have various beliefs about how Misplaced Pages should exist as. See Association of Deletionist Wikipedians and Exclusionism.

I fail to see how that is related to my previous comment or anything else in this discussion. Yoenit (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• comment placed in error below your message, moved above to correct area.Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep – The article is worthy of remaining included, the individual is noteworthy as an expert in edged-weapons, and there are a multitude of credible references in it.Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Note to closer This SPI case is probably worth looking at, though I don't see how it will change the outcome. Hobit (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep – a featured article C'mon Agathoclea (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - featured article. S Larctia (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a good one and its accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.34.177.46 (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2011 (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.