Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medford knife and tool

Add links
Source: 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 delete.  Sandstein  09:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medford knife and tool

Medford knife and tool (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)

Although

WP:CORPDEPTH and should be deleted. agtx 17:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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]
  • 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]

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 clean up 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]
keep 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 by 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]
Comment I did not know that there was an existing article or that it was up for deletion (found out when someone took my name in vain over here!). Early this week, someone pinged me with a request to look at a Draft and having some area of expertise in the area, I cleaned it up, used reliable sources and stripped out what could be considered by some as advertorial terms. It passed muster to me, this is a notable up and coming company in the knife industry that has received a fair amount of coverage.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been improved and reliable neutral third party sources have been added.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request: please remove those tags form the article: ; the article is not orphan since I posted new version at 29 July, It has been categorized. thank you Eytankey (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys I know everyone likes to be smart and wax rhapsodic and all but frankly I'm a bit taken aback by the level of somewhat arbitrary critique. In fact I think much of what has been leveled against this post is literarily and technically accurate, but not in keeping with latitude afforded so many other entries. I have really never used Wiki. for anything but after reading the critique leveled here I searched and parused several other listings in my industry. All I can say is that the listing or post here is generally on par with the others in the industry. As a company? The work we have done for "NSW" is discreet and I have always maintained that discretion. We are listed in several books ranging from CIA Tell-All's and smoke jumpers survival accounts to Brandon Webb's last book as a "company that makes knives that should be part of every war-fighter's kit." (Somewhat paraphrased) We are screen credited on the movie "Phantom" for providing knives and featured in magazines and printed publication from all over the planet...never 1 single advertisement as of today. In our 5 year history we have made 2 dagger models for the guys who neutralized Bin Laden, machetes for TraDet, have an official USMC approved EOD Knife/tool like nothing in the industry and actually make 100% of our knives in house. This year we will make over 10,000 knives and are significantly larger than many of the subjects (companies) listed here. Again, no advertising ever. Not sure how exactly you think we should be "more significant or notable." I admire your efforts to remain authentic and credible but I think it's only fair to judge this post, or listing or article or entry or whatever you call it, with the same latitude afforded many of the entries I have just recently looked at. On an intellectual note: ANY information about ANY COMPANY can be seen as "promotional" as opposed to "informative." Not true with many most of the subjects on Wiki. but our company is a force in the industry. The author in this case makes no grand claims or sales pitches about our company. He presents facts and has apparently done a decent bit of homework and revision to comply with your feedback. He has contacted me for additional source material and I have had my staff help him as requested. I would encourage you take a fresh look, less as you would an entry on an historical figure, but rather like other more and less prominent companies currently bless by approval! :) I appreciate the time you ALL have spent keepin' it real! Cheers. Greg Medford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1knifemaker (talk • contribs) 03:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, due to a lack of indpendent coverage in reliable third-party sources. This doesn't mean that the company doesn't exist, doesn't mean that their products aren't of a high quality, and doesn't mean that those involved aren't good people. But we can't write a neutral article on the company without neutral sources to call upon. As far as articles on other companies in the same industry goes,
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would seem to apply. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC).[reply
    ]

comment Excuse me, but I feel that there are double standards regarding the present article ; 1. Seem that this article which describes a knives company required to prove the existence and operations of the company as if it were a master work of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict . 2. The Article got objective sources - plain and simple ! Did not take a genius to figure it out . 3. The other pages of similar companies do not meet the standards of the reviews I encounter them - so please... 4. I ​​reject outright the claim that most subjects that do not have enough " respected " resources it 's not worth mentioning; This contradicts the principle of just about any curiosity and innovation. 5. sorry if anyone got hurt from what I wrote, this is my first experience with WIKIPEDIA and I feel like I have to fight a swarm of intellectuals just to mention that MKT exists. Eytankey (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2015 (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/Medford_knife_and_tool&oldid=1069642319"