Talk:Albion Swords

I fail to see how giving information on models or price ranges is "blatant advertising". We could say that the swords are in the "medium price range", but giving explicit figures is probably more useful, since many people won't know what "medium" prices are in sword replicas. The links to the (independent!) reviews are given as inspiration to people who might want to expand this article. It's a stub. Expand it, don't cut it down further. dab (𒁳) 16:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. At a basic level, a Wikipedia article on a company (any company) is supposed to "be written in an objective and unbiased style, be verifiable, describe notabaility, and use external links only if they serve to identify major corporations associated with the topic." Please consider reading Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and What Wikipedia is/is not.

With regard to the "why price ranges are advertising". In this specific case - given that there is VERY little other info in the article about the company - the prices are the only real content. And so - as noted - it makes the whole thing read like an advertisement: "Albion makes swords. Here are the types, and here are the prices". (With regard to the Mercedes comparison. The Mercedes article is considerably different. It sets out history, context, values, etc. And the "models" and "prices" are very incidental. And I think there is only one or two reference to price at all, and where they exist they fit within the context of Mercedes as a luxury/exclusive brand.) I would also point out (if we are looking for comparisons) that NONE of the other replica sword manufacturer company articles in Wikipedia mention price ranges.

Finally, with regard to reviews. Linking to reviews is OK. But only if the review is of the article topic/subject. There are links to reviews of 14 separate products on that page. External Links that are only indirectly related to the article's subject are not appropriate. And they further lend to the spam aspect this article has.

As you note, efforts should be made to improve this article. However, adding content inappropriate to the project is not good "Improve/Extend" practice.

Guliolopez 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to expand this article right now. I have created it with what I consider the most crucial basic information on the company, and I assure you I am in no way affiliated with them, so this is hardly spam. If anything, it is "fancruft", but I am not a fan in the sense that I have even ever bought from them, I just happen to know they are notable in their field. As a compromise, how about removing the price ranges for now (that is, until an in-depth description of the products is added), and be content that they offer swords in a "medium" range. dab (𒁳) 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Product Prices

I agree that the product description sounds like blatant advertising, it needs to be revised. There is no reason we need to display price information on Wikipedia. This can be found on the company's website. What should be given is information on the product lines they manufacture, such as film-swords, and the museum line.

A section should be added detailing their Lanze Fest event in New Glarus as well. I will try and revise/add to this page when I have time, maybe next week.

Starbuckt 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

I'm sorry, but this whole page reads like an advert to me

Can I ask why it hasn't it been considered for deletion ? Guthroth (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It cites a reliable source. That would be at least a hint at notability. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]