Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Wade

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Wade

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

Per WP:NCORP. Only sources located were primary and one PR source. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD fails wp:BEFORE. Per WP:NCORP.

Added New York Times article about Garrett Wade http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/garden/where-to-find-it-tools-for-carvers-and-cabinetmakers.html
Added link to Lie Nielsen Wikipedia page, which is the original source that links to the Garrett Wade page Lie Nielsen Toolworks.
Added Lee Valley customer letter talking about their early relationship with Garrett Wade: http://www.leevalley.com/us/home/page.aspx?p=46993&cat=60655,46992.
Added product development sentence with references to tools developed in-house. Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy 04:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCORP. Added reference to NY Times article Helpful Hardware - Tools that Measure (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/12/garden/helpful-hardware-tools-that-measure-by-barbara-l-eisenberg-and-mary-smith.html)
Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCORP. I've added more sources to address original AFD nomination. I welcome edits to the page as I am new to this. I respectfully object to deletion as I've added sources including multiple NYT articles and Garrett Wade is iconic in the woodworking and mail order/catalog industries. Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Keep - The NY Times article is a very good one for establishing notability. Others, like Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen aren't what would be considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. However, coverage about their catalog in Popular Mechanics, and coverage about them in a book about social media do establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with the sources above from Whpq User talk:Whpq. Thanks! Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 23:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company has multiple New York Times articles covering them here, here, and here. They have coverage about their catalog in Popular Mechanics. They also have coverage in a book about social media.Philip Murphy (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: When I created my profile, I listed my job as "Marketing Manager at Garrett Wade. It still reflects that. I do receive a yearly salary from Garrett Wade. Per recommendation from Whpq I am explicitly disclosing COI here and will refrain from making future edits unless explicitly asked to do so by admins. Thank you for your help with rules. I thought I was in compliance. I respect Wikipedia and do not want to break the rules.Philip Murphy (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article at this point isn't at all promotional, so there's no issue with it looking like advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass NCORP L3X1 (distant write) 16:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCORP. The multiple NY times definately establish notability --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2017 (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.