Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Coffee Machine


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Atomic Coffee Machine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contributor 118.210.115.248 = The genericist = Jack Grieve who wrote the article, is using the already protected trademark "Atomic" (Trademark holder: ) in Australia for his coffee machines made in Taiwan. His application was refused:. This page is used as a matter of promotion and false claims as to the legal case and doesn't reflect the history of this coffee machine. The subject of the article seems to be wether or not one is allowed to manufacture these coffee machines nowadays and under which name they should be marketed. Page "Atomic_Coffee_Machine" also witnesses poor ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) 04:06, 30 October 2011‎ — Nitzkovic (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - none of your claims are valid reasons for deletion, except for the claim of promotion - and this Jack Grieve is not mentioned in the article, nor is any special mention of Australian brands. The article could use some better sourcing, but it's not overly promotional as you claim. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear MikeWazowski, maybe i souldn't have deleted the link to his webpage before asking for deletion. (see history) The Source of the pictures is clearly labeled as sorrentinacoffee.com (see here: ). The same picture will be found on his Flickr account:. Althought the name is not mentionned, the article clearly serves his purpose of promotion, Mr. Jack Grieve beeing the general manager of Sorrentinacoffee:. It is a clearly a breach of the Soapbox policy. The article has a very legal angle which hasn't got its place on Wikipedia, and mainly present his personal views on the matter (Matter already discussed in a legal case in Australia see ipmonitor link above). Nitzkovic — Nitzkovic (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As the editor in question has not touched the article in six months (and for a year before that) and other editors have been free to edit and modify it in the time since, your argument about breaching the soapbox policy is invalid. I stand by my original comments. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 118.210.115.248 last contributed on the 12th of september 2011. To me, that's 48 days. His entry was a comment on a specific Blog (another breach of Wikipedia POV policy) (see ). I am only stating the obvious. Nitzkovic — Nitzkovic (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Of course, you have no proof of this - just baseless accusations from someone who appears (to me) to have their own conflict of interest in the matter. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I seriously question the motives of Nitzkovic, a single purpose editor who has only previously made edits to this single article and now wants to delete it. He claims that 118.210.115.248 is Jack Grieve, which goes against WP:OUTING, while offering no proof that this is the case. The nominator seems to have some kind of axe to grind and Wikipedia is not the place for that. To me the subject of the article looks notable enough to be kept. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No particular motive, no conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest look like this: See (with many Registered sign). I personnaly don't understand how this Atomic_coffee_machine article can be a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Read the text carefully. The purpose of the article seems to be that this machine can be manufacturered nowadays. (noone said the contrary). The rest of the article contains some rather personal views on the "generic" value of the word "Atomic" for these coffee machines. Where is the encyclopedic value of this article? Please explain to me why your argumentation is now concentrating on my motivation/interest? Seems to me that rather than discussing the matter, you would rather attack the person. And why is my point of view less valuable as a single purpose editor? Nitzkovic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me why the following phrases are relevant on an article about a coffee machine which production stopped in 1989: "These patents expired many decades ago and are now in the public domain." and "Given the high demand for Atomic coffee makers, and that the various patents expired many decades ago, it was only natural that someone should make reproductions based on those patents. Many people believe that such reproductions are 'fake','imitation' of 'knock off' products, however understandable such a view may be, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of intellectual property law as it is generally recognized internationally: once a patent has expired there is nothing morally or legally wrong in any party deciding to manufacture a product based on that patent. Indeed this is the social pay-off of the patent legislation. In return for a fixed period monopoly on their invention the inventor agrees to publish the details of the invention in the public domain. When the patent expires all are free to exploit it." To me, it is only relevant to the business who would like to manufacture them nowadays... the same business who wrote this article, and let his mark on the pictures. Nitzkovic (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Nitzkovic
 * Speedy keep Bad-faith nomination by a single purpose account who is apparently miffed that he can't insert a long-winded diatribe of his own in the article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

KEEP Hidden agenda behind deletion. Nitkovic is clearly biased has made many unsubstantiated claims concerning the supposed writer/s of the atomic coffee machine article. Having already deleted and re-written much of the article (somewhat poorly) he/she now seeks to remove the entire thing. The article is/was relevant and much of the material already removed by Nikovic seemed to be relevent and worthwhile. 180.181.122.185 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jack! "The entire thing" as you call it had no relevance what so ever apart from advertising your business, making false claim. Even the pictures you provided have your webpage linked to it. Who do you want to fool? Nitzkovic (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain me that phrase: "The Robbiati design and patent registrations cover the Atomic shape". It doesn't make sense at all. a) How can someone cover an atomic shape (atomic mushroom??? or a nucleus???)? b) The coffee machine doesn't look like a mushroom or an atom, does it?. Mr. Robbiati covered his improvements (patent). The rest is a trademark problematic (atomic name). If someone can explain how someone can cover an atomic shape in a patent, i would be very thankful. Nitzkovic (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - This article has been fully-protected until 11-15-2011. Nobody can edit it whatsoever, except for admins. Per the policy, "A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection may be for a specified time, or may be indefinite.". It would be unwise to close this AfD prematurely while editors cannot improve the article to establish topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So... it has been a week now. Where are the answers? "Atomic shape" was at the center of a Trademark battle in Australia (Jack Grieve (who started the article, and whose webpage address is still related to the picture of the article-> Advertising for free!) vs Irene Notaras). The sad thing beeing: There is no "Atomic shape". You need to differenciate what is a patent to what is a trademark. So easy and yet... Nitzkovic (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep  because I'm actually having difficulty grepping what the requester's argument is. It's certainly not based in Wikipedia policy. - Rushyo  Talk  23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as no support from anyone but nominator and no argument for deletion advanced (per WP:Speedy Keep). Note that I'm not arguing an argument hasn't been advanced, but that I can't figure out for the life of me how it relates to deletion. Also might be considered vexatious. - Rushyo  Talk  13:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 4.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  16:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, content dispute. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's been more than a month, and the only delete vote is from the nominator, who was a WP:SPA with a possible bad faith nomination. Can we get an admin to close this as a keep? It's been open for far too long. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, cannot explain why this is nominated. Plenty of sources.
 * Also Comment: Should the title of the article be Atomic coffee machine, without caps? Tinton5 (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 December 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.