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 redirect to Hackman. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hackman butterfly knife

[edit]

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

I just tagged Hackman butterfly knife for deletion. It's just a description of a particular brand of knife, with no indication why it would be special over and above other brands. ---- 79.223.6.24 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Completing a nomination for deletion on behalf of IP 79.223.6.24. Request here --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Butterfly knife. There's no reliable source that covers the brand significantly; of course, blogs and forums do mention that this is perhaps an iconic brand. But as there's no reliable source, can't do anything about it. Lourdes 11:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that it's significant enough, compared to similar products by other manufacturers, to warrant a redirect. Fails notability per WP:NPRODUCT. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dom, the brand is featured in popular culture. Books like The Butcher's Son and private collections[1][2] have references of the same. That's why I believe a redirect may be a good option. Thanks, Lourdes 10:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I wrote the original nomination.)

It's not very clear where the pictures are coming from. It could very well be just a catalogue of thousands of knives of different brands.

I don't mind either way though, both delete and redirect would be fine. ---- 91.10.39.145 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wary Keep~~ Merge to Hackman. Hmh, interesting. I digged the forums a bit and there might be some notability from RS to the knife (re it being used by the CIA in Vietnam) if one would do proper research. See below quotes:

A couple of other books (besides Mike Silvey's) that are mentioned as reference apparently do not make mention of a CIA connection. One is in Finnish book and the other one is Ken Warner's "The Practical Book of Knives." However, there is a third book that supposedly states the connection. It's "The Knives of Finland" by Lester C Ristinen: https://www.amazon.com/The-Knives-Finland-Lester-Ristinen/dp/0962683906 [3]

The following info comes from "The Working Folding Knife" by Steven Dick (a great book - you should get a copy if you don't already): An importer got permission to import Hackman Camp knives (from Finland) from US Customs. The book doesn't give the type of stainless used, but does state that a number of these knives were purchased by the CIA. Since they were of foreign manufacture, they were "sterile" (not traceable back to the US)." [4]

Cheers Manelolo (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on RS: Hah, managed to find a RS for the CIA claim and added it to the article: Silvey, Michael W. Pocket Knives of the United States Military. 2002. ISBN 0965554422. You can see the source page pictured here at 0:44: [5]. Nevertheless, my final opinion would be to merge any verifiable info to the Hackman article and add the rest to its talk page for possible future use. Manelolo (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 23:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If this article were created yesterday, instead of ten years ago, would you suggest it be saved? I doubt it. All original research. No citations. Someone will argue that its long life give its some privilege. I argue the other way. If no references have appeared in ten years, what makes us believe things will change now? I say, "Let's see the notability before the discussion is over." Blog posts don't count. And neither do sources that got their start from people looking at this article for ten years. Rhadow (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hackman per Manelolo; Despite being used by the CIA during Vietnam, WP:PRODUCT specifically advises to avoid articles for every individual item produced by a manufacturer. Operator873^CONNECT 03:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hackman as per WP:ATD-M. Upon consideration and source searches, not notable for a standalone article, but the merge target article has no mention, so this will improve the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hackman. I've struck off my earlier !vote because a merge to Hackman (which, I had no idea existed) seems more sensible here than a Redirect to Butterfly knife. Lourdes 18:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.