Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricut

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cricut[edit]

Cricut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable brand from a non-notable company. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, (but are not limited to):
— This deletion nomination appears to be a failure of following section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nomination. Sources are clearly available, and all of the above sources were found simply by clicking on the Google News archive at the header of this nomination. Please read WP:BEFORE in entirety prior to making further spurious nominations using Twinkle, it clogs AfD with unnecessary nominations. Thank you in advance for your utmost consideration regarding this important matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Above links show coverage in a range of major news sources including New York Times, Wired (which has multiple stories), and CBS News. There's also books about it[1][2] (physical books from more than 1 publisher). Meets WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep I agree that this topic passes the simple bar of notability. However I would gladly delete a hundred articles like this in favour of one good article on computer-controlled die-cutting in the home crafting market. 3D printing is at risk of going the same way too.
This article is far from encyclopedic. It discusses one trivial machine (as AL rightly complains) that is of no long-standing significance. Wired didn't report this machine because the Cricut is the next Model T Ford, but because it was just a convenient example for the broader topic of home CNC applied to crafting. That has encyclopedic significance and value, Cricut does not. The article is bloated with, if not outright promotion, then at least unencyclopedic parts-catalogue information about this one machine. What an encyclopedia should be doing is to cover the broader topic instead, not the narrow example. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article has been updated to cover various Cricut machines, and has been copy edited to reduce promotional tone. More inline citations have also been added. It sure takes a lot more time to improve articles than it does to simply delete them by convincing an administrator to press a few buttons! Northamerica1000(talk) 14:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would contest the comment above that the article just discusses "one trivial machine" out of the whole field of home cutters. The fact is that Cricut (and we're talking about the entire line of machines from this manufacturer) has achieved a very considerable dominance in this sector, both in marketshare and in mindshare, because of its unique closed proprietary design-cartridge business model, which has made it far more lucrative for retailers and, in particular, for television home-shopping craft channels to promote, to an extent that has given the company the overwhelming brand visiblility, pretty much to the exclusion of all others. One could also make a case that cutting plotters have been around pretty much since the '70s, but that it is the ease-of-use, all-in-one-sleek-package, ready-to-go nature of Cricut's cartridge system (as well as the retailer-attractiveness of its business model) that has essentially created a substantial new market for these machines in the craft sector, which previously was barely there.
The other thing that I think makes this article a "keep" are Cricut's DMCA suits against would-be manufacturers of interoperable software. The trademark assertions are particularly bogus, as there's clear descriptive use, similar for example to referring to "Dyson vacuum cleaners" if what you're about to say is only applicable to Dyson vacuum cleaners -- this is not a trademark infringement, even if undertaken for the purposes of trade or commerce. The copyright assertions, for Cricut's on-the-wire protocols, are also very questionable. This was the kind of thing that in EU vs Microsoft was compared to trying to copyright the numerical combination you've chosen for a combination lock. Under U.S. law it arguably would be seen as "functional" speech rather than "creative" or "expressive" -- so not covered by copyright law. There are (thankfully) not so very many examples of the use of copyright overreach of this kind to succesfully shut down technical competitors -- though various inkjet printer cartridge manufacturers tried something similar in 2004-5. (It's also far from clear that MTC and SCAL were really hurting Cricut, as many users on forums at the time said they appreciated Cricut's designs and instant ease-of-use, and identified themselves as therefore also being some of the most committed buyers of Cricut's cartridges). But anyway I'm saying that I think from a legal point of view Cricut has also made itself notable, too. Jheald (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an important point. Certainly we shouldn't lose coverage of Cricut's DRM-heavy approach from here, unless we had it covered equally well in some other more general article.
As to market share, then that's a US issue. They're unknown here in the UK. Although the UK market is tiny as yet, and there's certainly no big-spend advertising for them, the machines that are in use are at the more open end of access. Having seen just how horrible the Cricut lock-in is, there's no way I'd ever buy one of these.
I'd still much rather see a good article on the topic, rather than an article on one machine. However this DRM issue swings its significance in favour of keeping it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the Wired article [3] and other things Northamerica1000 found. Next time please look through Google news archive search briefly before nominating something for deletion. Dream Focus 21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep: article is well sourced as it stands now; I can't see any argument that this is non-notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With thirteen inline citations and two other sources, this article has good reliable sources. It covers more than the company product by mentioning other such products, and explaining much about these products for the potential buyer. Do I claim the article is useful? Sure. Being useful is a plus in deciding whether to keep an article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cricut&oldid=1088297905"