Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medford knife and tool

Medford knife and tool

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although Variation 25.2 has made some edits to try and cut down the promotional content, this still fails WP:CORPDEPTH and should be deleted. agtx 17:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medford Knives is a knife maker similar to Chris Reeves and deserves a site similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Reeve_Knives — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmatthieu (talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 July 2015 — Cmatthieu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, that billboard should probably be deleted too. Reyk _YO! 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least that one is referenced.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete Content is not encyclopedic, advertising reverted - article is unsourced, no notability established. The "no mexicans" comment in the # of employees section is particularly troublesome. A four year old company with 22 employees does not meet WP:GNG Scr★pIron^IV 20:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this might be notable, there has been no significant non-promotional material added to this article during its lifetime. Even the background information on the proprietor is of dubious relevance. I worry that it will always be a stub or continually reverting to promotional junk.Lucas559 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete This could/should have been speedy deleted as Promo. Unreferenced and with an unacceptable tone for an encyclopedia.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello all, In view of the problems that were presented in the article, I wrote my own article on the subject which I hope will meet the requirements professions. let me know what you think! thank you Eytankey (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a copy and paste from Draft:Medford knife And tool whose submission was declined for the same issues with the exception that this one at least has references. It is still heavily promotional and written in POV way - BUT far better than the article it replaced. I am changing my vote from Speedy delete to plain delete and am hoping that further edits will allow me to change my mind once again.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you peter, the Draft:Medford knife And tool is mine,and working hard to improve it! give me a day or two Eytankey (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please address notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? Eytankey (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Refs are not significant. Blatant advertising Velella ^{Velella Talk}

How come this is advertising and other commercial companies articles are not? please explain - thank you; Some of this article Refs are recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Blades Eytankey (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously not a pass for WP:CORP. Depends on far too many primary and/or unreliable sources. Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment disagree, how well are you familiar with the sources that you can determine that they are unreliable? Eytankey (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we now also have Medford knife And tool as an article, and in far better shape than the one we are discussing here Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unacceptable work around - gaming the system and is actually not that different in content with the article being discussed here. More to the point is the edit summaries state that it was an accepted version which is not the case. I am putting the article up for Db-same speedy deletion - any improvements should be done to this article at the very least to maintain eidt history.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]