The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cannot be written from a NPOV view because the primary page author is closely connected to the subject matter; and (by his own admission on the talk page) the method for bending the wood (which is the only real point of interest) is "secret" so cannot be turned into a good article. OTOH, the primary author has shown a respectable amount of Good Faith, as evidenced on the talk page. But it boils down to one thing: without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have litte notability Robinh (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally started this page, so that it could be recorded somewhere in history about the first grown mirror standing on its own roots. It is from this perspective that I have been editing the page.
:::* 1. Without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have little notability
Here is my rebuttal of above points
1. To suggest that this page would have little merit without the tree shaping methods is under rating the value of the historical achievements.
Which leads us to the second point.
2.
3. Axel N Erlandson never published, or told anyone how to shape his trees. Some people have attempted to back engineer how he did them but have not had the success that Axel N Erlandson did.
So this knowledge was lost.
This is what I was referring to with the line in 'complete isolation from the rest of the world.
4.
Blackash (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]