Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitro Snowboards

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 delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro Snowboards[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Nitro Snowboards has not been the subject of any significant coverage by independent sources. The company's name or products are mentioned in passing in some article, such as lists of various snowboard products, or lists of sports sponsorships. But none of these sources are primarily about Nitro Snowboards. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - Thus far, I have only found one source that provides coverage beyond passing mentions, from Onboard magazine. Otherwise, source searches are providing content with passing mentions, directory listings, etc. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability in the article. No sources are cited. Nothing that would pass RS showed up on a Google search. Article appears to fail WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:V. That's three strikes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI User:Ad Orientem, the source I provided in my !vote above from Onboard magazine is a reliable source; it's from a paid-subscription magazine with editorial oversight. I post this because you keep saying "no" about everything that has to do with this article (e.g. "Nothing that would pass RS showed up on a Google search"), but the one I provided above is indeed a reliable source. Not to be overly picky, but did you bother to read and assess the source I provided above? You state that the topic appears to fail WP:V, but this is just incorrect per the source I posted. Please read the source I posted above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi NorthAmerica. I did actually take a glance at the source you found (good job in source hunting btw). I am uncertain as to its reliability though. Many of these magazines that deal with niche sports and limited markets are heavily dependent on advertising revenue from the same companies whose products they review. I have seen this with other sporting type publications that are bound to have a limited readership. One prominent example would be magazines that deal with guns and shooting sports. It is a common practice to give the velvet glove treatment when reviewing guns manufactured by major advertisers. In cases where they are so bad that one just can't write something nice about them they are usually returned to the manufacturer with a note suggesting a different model might be better for reviewing purposes. The practice is sufficiently widespread that it was mentioned rather prominently in a NY Times article a while back. My bottom line though is that while I don't dismiss all niche sport magazines as non-RS, I do treat them as suspect pending some firm evidence beyond their own claims to impartiality. I also note that Wikipedia discourages the use of sources too closely associated with the topic. But I do concede that this is a gray area and different people can look at the same source and come to different conclusions. If you feel it's RS I won't say you are wrong, because I can't prove that it is not RS. All I can say is that I am not convinced. This may be one of those situations where we may have to agree to respectfully disagree. Setting that aside however, the clear standard is for multiple reliable sources. So even if other editors were inclined to accept this one as RS compliant, I think we would still be a ways from meeting requirements for WP:N. Thanks for your comment and your work here. It seems like there is a chronic shortage of editors participating in AfD of late. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, which is appreciated. I'm aware of the points you make above, but the source I provided doesn't appear to be a paid advertorial. It's a product review from a snowboarding magazine that snowboarding enthusiasts read to learn about snowboarding topics. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. LIke I said, this is a gray area. In the meantime I am suffering from sleep deprivation and making a hash out of adding a simple reference to my earlier comment. I think I will just delete it. If anyone wants the link to the NY Times article drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If additional sources are found, users can feel free to ping me, as I'm always open to reconsideration (e.g. changing my !vote) in light of objective sources that may surface about topics. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 18 March 2014 (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.