Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Price


 * 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 keep. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Price

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional, unreferenced since its creation ten years ago, reads like a press release, WP:BEFORE shows little actual third-party coverage to meet WP:CORP. No reasonable prospects of the article's problems being fixed organically. PROD removed with no effort to fix problems. David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep important historic company. there will be other references. Some of the currentmaterial should be reduced to eliminate the promotionalism /. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument of yours there will be other references is pretty much invalid for AfD per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Either there are sources, or there are not. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be delighted to be shown wrong, but first you have to do the actual showing. Will there be other references? Please produce some, enough to pass WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I added a reference to a book where a paragraph discusses the company's changing manufacture approach. I was tempted to WP:TNT the article down to only the couple of sentences which are supported by that reference, but left it for the time being in case others can find references to support the remaining claims and also render the text encyclopaedic. I don't regard the paragraph in the Bryson article, where the firm serves just as an example of wider changes, as sufficient for WP:NCORP though. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly needs some editing to reduce its promotional tone, but sufficient coverage in newspapers , academic articles  and books   to meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly a keep as they are royal warranted, well known manufacturer (in UK at least) who produced cutlery for titanic and currently UK parliament (see the star article) and as per above this just needs re-creating and referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:DCBF:59BE:B586:1F35 (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, google showing enough, for example, . Szzuk (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.