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 edit history.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was probably accidental acceptance, performed by a very new reviewer, albeit an experienced editor. Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are probably right. I have interacted with User:Mike Searson from way back and don't expect that behaviour from him on purpose. His clean-up of the And version should be applied to this article.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

response posted User:Mike Searson end version on this page, I think It is fine, and we can end this saga. I understand the importance of refs but the cold weapons is not as rich in refs as middle eastern history (for example)...let us start with that, and with the wiki blade project we will add more custom cold weapons makers to the list like RMJ, fulvio del tin ect. Eytankey (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD debate still needs to run its course considering the number of comments generated. My main objections have been addressed so I am removing (not switching to keep) my delete vote. I would still like to see something in the article which speaks to notability (ie. why is the company special).Peter Rehse (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Whoever looks at the issue of deletion should take attention that the original article has been replaced; Entire text of whoever wrote the initial article originally replaced my text and therefore one must consider that and ignore the comments before the article update as they relate to the old text.

2. This company is unique, but the refs for that are not discuss what was considered proper source; Without getting into what is considered proper source of the current era and in the field of cold weapons, there is room for many cold weapons firms Wikipedia. It is THE encyclopedia, and there is room for a wide range of fields as long as they are properly documented. Its uniqueness - noted - has been removed because it is considered to be promotional Eytankey (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]