Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axe manufacturing in Pennsylvania


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Axe manufacturing in Pennsylvania

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is hard to figure out what to do with this: it was denied at AfC a few times because it was too essay-like, and I think it still is: "Axe manufacturing in PA" is not a topic in the sense that Corn production in the United States is a topic (as evidenced by publications such as this). Rather, this is a list of some companies that created tools there, based on local histories and some newspaper articles. Note the sourcing: many, too many, of the sources are privately published books, and we find a couple of websites. One searches in vain for the standard publication in the field among the citations, but worse, that publication seems to designate no special position to Pennsylvania as a location for the manufacturing of axes--they were made there, plentifully, but no differently from other states. In short, what we have here is not a topic but rather a kind of umbrella for excruciatingly detailed local histories who not by themselves seem to rise to the level of notability per GNG. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I moved this page out of AfC on the recommendation of Legacypac and I saw no reason not to move this. I would characterise the sources as sufficient. What we've got to consider here is that the age of the sources, and the fact that they were covered at all is indicative of historical notability- that is to say that this brand would have been well known in the past. The fact we've got histories written on this company written in 1888, and sizeable mentions in books e.g. Ancient Carpenters' Tools by Henry Mercer (and others linked in the article) shows notability within the axe manufacturing niche. IMO, there's no doubt that this company was notable within its field (axe manufacturing) within its time (really 1800s), but my opinion is that were this company be alive today in the scale it was back then, it would pass GNG. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a much more encyclopedic topic than many we cover. It’s an actual history topic about an important industry in a large geographic area. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is actually a perfectly viable subject matter. I do think the article could use some cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup. Sourcing is there. An industry with several manufacturers will almost always meet GNG, and it seems that here too.Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the nominator fairly states that many of the sources are self-published, many others are regional newspapers with a cumulative weight sufficient to meet WP:SECONDARY, assuming that all the sources are fairly cited. More generally, the article subject itself is perfectly encyclopedic. Fiachra10003 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - My first thought was that this article seems to be too local to central Pennsylvania (I'd expect Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburg to play a bigger role). However, while iron works in other parts of the state are/were a big deal, looking through google and newspapers.com, I think this article does a good job summarizing the key parts of the industry in the state and don't see major thematic changes as necessary, much less deletion. On the contrary of suggestion that this page is too local, I would suggest some of the firms and individuals could have their own wikipedia pages and some of the material on this page moved to those pages. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- it seems a perfectly good article, though it mainly focuses on one firm. It might have been split so that the Mann firm(s) had an article which would be a "main" article to one on the others, but why bother.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually this article has reliable sources and the topic besides being historic is covered well directly (as evidenced by extensive bibliography, which are reputably published books). Per WP:GNG once topic is covered reasonably in RS, then it can have standalone page. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - A nice sourced essay of a topic meeting GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep enough cleanup is needed that I wouldn't have moved it out of draft space yet, but the topic is fine. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A rename to "Axe manufacturing in the United States" or something slightly more general may be reasonable, but as an editorial decision once the article is improved and expanded. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I know I'm bucking the majority here, but I am truly finding it difficult to see this as an encyclopedic topic.  If conflating an industry with a locality is all one needs for "encyclopedic value", where does it stop?  Plumbing in Tyrolia?  Button making in Wessex?  Dog grooming in Arizona?  And Wikipedia already knows the answer to this question -- an article requires a demonstration that authoritative sources have discussed the particular conflation as a real "thing".  And what evidence for that do we have here?  Nothing except the opinion of a guy who runs a website and wrote some self-published books.  But neither of the two books cited here was registered at the Library of Congress and a search at WorldCat shows that they are not held by any of the more than 70,000 libraries in its worldwide system. I also thought it might be possible to re-purpose the article.  It is essentially a history of Mann Edge Tools, to which has been appended a listing of brief "biographies" of other companies.  But would Mann Edge Tools qualify for a separate article?  Again, we have little more than a book published by a local museum (the Fagley text).  And how much authority does this book have?  Looking through the references, the highest page number being cited is 42, suggesting that this book is really little more than a pamphlet.  And as with the Lamond texts, there has been no registration at the Library of Congress and no holdings by any library in the WorldCat system.  I don't see this as enough to justify an article on the company.  And as for the rest of the sources -- they're all local newspapers and guides that talk about local companies and industries. In all, the article's author has not demonstrated that this is an encyclopedic topic.  I don't know if there is a publication with a name like Axe Maker Monthly but, if there is, that would be the perfect venue for publishing the research that was done here.  But Wikipedia is not the place for it.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2017 (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.