Talk:Umnumzaan

Hopefully I can justify why this article should not be deleted. Re: independent, reliable sources, the only reliable source I know of in existence today with all of the information in the article is the manufacturer's data sheet on the Umnumzaan, in hardcopy format available from the company itself, and in soft copy on their website. I have provided the softcopy link as a reference in the article. Another source is that is scheduled to be published is the November 2008 Blade Magazine article. This article, according to Blade Magazine Editor Steven Schackleford, will discuss all of the 2008 Blade Magazine award winning knives from the June 2008 Blade Show. In lieu of citing this future article, I have referenced the Blade Magazine web page, which lists all the award winners, but does not give the details that the article would give.

From a notability standpoint, I would propose that the Umnumzaan is a noteable article due to its significant discussions in the knife forums (Bladeforums.com, Knifeforum.com, to name a few), as well as winning Blade's 2008 "Overall Knife of the Year" Award. This award is generally recognized as the most significant award in the cutlery industry.

Please let me know if there is any more information I should be giving for this justification. Additionally, I've tried to give this article a NPOV, but if there are any suggestions on improvement in this area, as a newbee Wikipedian, I'd much appreciate the coaching. Thanks, Crk historian (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Speedy Deletion, Merge vs. Separate Article

Please do not remove the tag until there has been review on this article. There is currently an article on Chris Reeve Knives which manufactures this particular knife. I suggest you move this information there. As it stands, this is not an article about a particular kind of knife or folding implement, but about only one brand of that type, hence my concern. I would be happy to discuss this further. --Robbie Giles (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move information, you can do (or suggest) a merge. However, in case of a merge, the article is turned into a redirect and may not be deleted (since the history of the edits before the merge has to be kept). I have removed the speedy tag and added an "advertising" tag. You are free to suggest a merge of course. Fram (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to keep it, but would support a merge to the Chris Reeve Knives article. This model is very new and not much printed material exists on it, yet. As nice a knife as it is, I don't see the need for it to have it's own article as it's not particularly innovative, influential, etc upon the rest of the cutlery industry so far, unlike the sebenza or CQC-7 for example.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references, and changed some wording towards more encyclopedicism (so fun to make up words . . .). I'm a very new author, so I don't have a good bearing on the level of noteability that a given product needs to possess in order to warrant it's own page. I would say, however, that this knife's innovations take the framelock and pivot bearing to a new level. It's always been a concern for knife users that the framelock wears excessively over time due to the softer Ti rubbing against the harder blade material. The Ti lockbar is needed for its range of elasticity, so manufacturers feel like they can't change out that material to keep optimal lockbar operation. Embedding a very hard ceramic ball to both negate the wear issue, as well as clear the mating surface of debris (another solution to a problem with two large mating surfaces), is revolutionary. Using the perforated washers to cut down on friction, but still allow the washer's large diameter for side-to-side mechanical strength is also quite an innovation. I believe that these innovations are of the magnitude of improvement in design of the invention lf the framelock itself. I'm also a camera enthusiast, and have enjoyed contributing to the Nikon FM2 article. In my estimation, the FM2 had innovations over the original FM (use of Ti vertical focal plane shutter, resulting in 2x the sync flash shutter speed) that were on the order of the Umnumzaan over the Sebenza. For those reasons, I'd support it staying as its own article. Jumpcoach (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's as good a case as any I've heard. I missed Blade this year and Chris was a no-show at Solvang, so i have yet to handle one of these knives. Maybe the editors who want it wiped off the face of wikipedia can point out the advertising terms?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several edits have been made to this article towards a NPOV, references have been added, and we've discussed the notability of this subject. I would propose that the advert banner be removed, and this article stand as an article. Thoughts? Jumpcoach (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no dissenter to the proposal, I've removed the advert banner. If someone disagrees with this action, please post your concerns.Jumpcoach (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]