Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2313240fda326b9

Jump to content

Talk:Mohawk Innovative Technology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 15 years ago by CHeshmat in topic Contested deletion

March 1, 2006 - We have modified the MiTi page to comply with Wiki standards. Please re-review and remove the advert warning.



I agree -- we need to modify this a bit. Thanks for the notice.


As one of the references ( http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/0/pub0417.html ) says, "The winners of the Tibbetts award represent the vanguard of American technological know-how." MiTi isn't a household name like GE and McDonald's because it doesn't have a multi-billion dollar advertising budget. However, it is still a notable company with notable technologies and accomplishments.

Further, this has already been run through lots of different Wikipedia and non-wikipedia editors to ensure that it *isn't* advertising. Is there anything specific that has been objected to? We can certainly add back in lots of info about MiTi's awards, accomplishments, relationships with big companies, etc but all that was *removed* in order to avoid the appearance of advertising. Should it be inserted to satisfy the notablity question?

CHeshmat (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Contested deletion

[edit]

Whether this pages deserves deletion or not, it's far above the level for speedy deletion. Take it to AfD if you must.

The company exists, and has achieved notable innovations in its field. It is also sufficiently large and note-worthy to have been covered by 3rd party sources. Both of these are already referenced in the existing article. --Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Andy. So can we delete the deletion warning now? CHeshmat (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply