Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Deere tractor

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 Speedy kept on withdrawal of nomination and WP:SNOWBALL. Well done to all who worked on this. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Deere tractor

John Deere tractor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

While this topic merits encyclopedic inclusion the current article is nothing but an advertisement for the John Deere Company. All references are to the company website and the article basically gives an overview of what products John Deere has to offer and gives a handy link to the company as well. The article, in its current form should be deleted unless someone can salvage it. I marked it as an ad almost a month ago and it has undergone no significant changes. IvoShandor 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• keep then it needs clean-up not AFD. --Fredrick day 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a blatant ad to me. I don't know if any of that content is even salvageable. Have at it, I know nothing about tractors. IvoShandor 13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - You say yourself that it merits encyclopedic inclusion, thus there is no argument against it. This is a "Sofixit" scenario, not an AfD scenario. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 14:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a blantant ad, that's enough. IvoShandor 22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Stubify and Keep; this is fixable, and could be sprotected if anons persist in inserting adspam. Heather 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per nom, actually. Needs some cleanup, though. Maxamegalon2000 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not seeing anything particularly spamlike in either content or tone. Products described are indisputably notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't seem excessively spammy to me, either, but certainly could use some cleanup. Might suggest a withdrawal of this nom? Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. John Deere tractors are very well-known and very notable. Deleting this would be like deleting the article on the Ford F-Series. --Charlene 15:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep None of the tractor articles are much to look at - see Farmall, International Harvester and Oliver Corp., but they aren't delete-worthy, and neither is this. Acroterion _(talk) 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Since there are books about the history and development of tractors, with this being a major brand, and certainly hundreds of article over the years on developments of new features, comparison of brands, sales, etc. This article is, however very lacking in the history, market share, comparison to other brands. I saw a number of vintage Deere tractors in a recent parade. People buy, collect, and restore them. I'm surprised tractorholics haven't yet seen fit to work on this article. Anything excessively spammy or sounding like a catalog of current products can certainly be edited down or removed. Edison 16:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

An article like this need not describe every product. John Deere tractors are so integral in agricultural history that this article doesn't even come close to being encyclopedic, I will not withdraw the nomination. I hope someone fixes it, it's a shame that this kind of content is allowed to stay here. IvoShandor 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

this puzzles me--you say it is critically important , and therefore want to delete it? DGG 03:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my point, there is plenty to put in an article besides a rewrite of their catalog. IvoShandor 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed almost all content, anyone want to try a rewrite? That was an ad, no matter how you paint it, tagged as such a month ago, no one cared about it then, which led me to believe the article would never be cleaned up, ever, remaining an ad for John Deere, I had no choice but to AfD it, if it gets saved all the better, I stubified it, anyone with knowledge of the history of the tractor should attack it. An encyclpedic topic doesn't make the content encyclopedic.IvoShandor 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

With the article stubified I will withdraw my nomination, provided someone doesn't revert my change. IvoShandor 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do next, remove the template? Is that okay? IvoShandor 01:50, 3 July 2007 (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.