Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handforged flatware

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 spooned into the bit bucket (delete). Unfortunately we require articles to cite sources, which none of these articles have. The content may be worthy of an article again once sources are cited. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 09:35Z

Handforged flatware

(View log)

The creator has been posting this text to various locations, possibly for some kind of a promotional. In addition to the above two articles, he created Handforged (deleted by me since it was blanked by the creator), and added a similar text to Spoon. - Mike Rosoft 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what they mean by a 'content fork' - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - as the author of Plated ware I feel a sort of kinship here, but this as it stands is content free & at most warrants a subsection in Spoon. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this so please bear with me what would be the best course of action should i remove the section from spoons or should i keep the subsection in spoons and deleate handforged flatware i had intended to add a lot more content to the handforge section pictures and history as it is my profession and is in danger of becoming a lost craft please feel free to advice it is not intended as a promotion i was just concerned thier is no record of handforged flatware/Cutlery Davidbaggaley 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered this in detail on your talk page to save cluttering up this discussion. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice @Iridescenti i fould your relpy very helpfull I have placed a subsection in spoons but what about forks and knives as they would all warrent a subsection the articles would be very similar in content would this be alowed or should i consentrate on the handforged flatware page and place links on the spoons andd forks and knives pages?Davidbaggaley 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally - and this is my opinion not any kind of policy - if the text is going to be the same, have a separate article with links in from fork etc, but make sure it's referenced etc (see Metal injection molding, Plated ware or Shot peening for some examples of well-referenced metalworking stub articles, or Case hardening for a good example of a longer article). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly (per Iridescenti) but I would change if the article had references outside of the creator's website. I think this is a valid topic but the burden of at least some refs is on the creator. There's not a way for anyone to make it encyclopedic without that.--killing sparrows 06:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ugg per trying to take an objective view. the article is viable and exists, but taking it as it is, it cannot exist as unsourced. if i knew enough about flatware i'd try and save the_undertow ^talk 08:47, 20 April 2007 (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.