Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Workshop (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Workshop[edit]

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

This appears to be a small company owned, way up the line, by Burton Snowboards, itself better known, but not terribly large either. This article is mainly a vehicle for vandals wanting to insert their favorite, though unknown, skateboarders. Perhaps it could be merged into Burton or some other company. Or just plain deleted. It won't be greatly missed! Student7 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that this article has survived one AFD already, it would help if the nominator would say what they think has changed since then. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nom seems to have been kept based on "Google Hits" and Votes rather than actual criteria for notability. The article is still lacking sources. Google Hits aren't considered valid anymore, and deletion reviews are not "votes". I would say Delete unless sources can be found for the article. Most of what I found has been trivial mentions of someone owning this type of skateboard, rather than articles about the company. Denaar (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ESPN said the company has one of skateboarding's "most respected squads" here. Their clothing line received in depth attention in Knight-Ridder newspapers here. They were described as one of the "top skateboard companies" in an article about the miniature skateboard fad in the The Gazette in Colorado Springs here. Their diversification from skateboards to clothing and other products was described in a Myrtle Beach Sun News article here. MTV described their skateboarding team as "legendary" here. In the skateboarding world, the magazine called Thrasher helps determine notability, and they profiled the company here. As for the accusations of vandalism by the nominator, I recommend a review of the relevant policy, which begins with this definition: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page." If a new editor inserts the name of a skateboarder into the team members section of this article, that is absolutely not vandalism, although there may be other legitimate reasons to revert such an edit. Calling such an editor a "vandal" is wrong. It is OK to criticize an edit, but it is not OK to call an editor who has not vandalized a "vandal".Cullen328 (talk)
Comment. In the event that this Afd fails, I will expect Sergeant Cribb and/or Cullen328 to add this article to their watchlist and keep up with vandals, who are the only editors interested in it. I'm outta here either way. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2011 (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.