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. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freebord[edit]

This article was prodded and deleted but there was an objection to the prod at the talk page and later at deletion review. Procedural nomination, no recommendation from me. Haukur 19:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, Freebord patent espacenet.com --Nate abrego 04:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, the product has been featured in many, many US and international media magazines, with PDFs of the articles available at their website. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks notable to me. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Also has articles in French and German, obviously notable. tmopkisn ^tlka 19:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, notable. -- Ravn 21:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google hits all over the place. JDoorjam Talk 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• From the article: All freebords are currently being manufactured by a single company, Freebord manufacturing Inc.
  This is a de facto advertisement for that company, eh? I see zero hits on google news, and in fact very few google hits full stop, less than 500 unique. The pdfs linked from the home page (the ones I looked I, I admin I couldn't be arsed to check them all, they are huge downloads) were advertorials. This should be moved to Freebord manufacturing Inc and then deleted as failing to satisfy the guideline for inclusion of businesses. That guideline is quite clear on the requirement for "multiple non-trivial published works" and further states that "stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service [...] may be treated as press releases." The article totally lacks third party sources and based upon my google-trawling they may be difficult to find if we exclude "press releases" per the guideline. Does there in fact exist multiple independant sources that heartily endorse this product and/or service? - brenneman ^{L} 06:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the sources problem - I think it can be fixed, even though this kind of sports events are not commonly mentioned in mainstream media - hence the number of advertorialoid reviews in trend sport magazines. The article is however not about the company, but the sport, and should be treated as such. Snakeboards have a similar history - a single company holding a patent. I therefore do not understand the aforementioned sentence or the article as an advertisement for the company. -- Ravn 10:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... The way I thought it worked is that Google takes the 500 top hits and displays the unique ones among those (430 or something, in this case). So you never see more than 500 Google hits no matter what you do. Haukur 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the top 1,000 unique hits that Google will show. I see 568 unique hits in English. Ral315 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but re-write so as to reduce the advertising in it. Ral315 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obvious growing trend. Many news hits from major publications. --JJay 01:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could actually link those, please? - Aaron Brenneman 13:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, I have a hard time believing that you are sincerely asking for links or references. Didn't you sum it all up above when you said there were almost no google hits, or "zero" news items? Before quoting, once again, from the guideline that we all know. I really wonder what kind of "google trawling" you do. In any case, let me be quite clear. I'll be happy to start posting links and other excerpts from a broad range of publications, all written by real live reporters, into this discussion, if you promise to then add them as references to the article. Because I'm sure you'll agree - given your interest in google - that Freebord and its 125,000 google hits is just as important as frog cake and its 836 google hits. --JJay 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why you're searching in french, or why you've chosen to personalise this by bringing up a minor article that I've edited, but if you'll notice that when I did edit it I added sources from The national heritage trust of South Australia, The Australian National University, and Australian Radio National - all found via my "interest in google." If you can please provide some actual sources, as opposed to odd character attacks, this would be a non-issue. - Aaron Brenneman 00:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not personalizing anything, but I do have an aversion to people who dump misinformation into these debates - such as your remarks on few google hits, or no news hits- particularly when they can't be "arsed" to look, but do have the time to quote ad nauseum from guideline pages. I'll take your comment to mean that you plan on redacting your initial comment and will add references and links to the article. Here is a small sample. Note that there are many, many more article sources, including all the coverage in specialized publications and certain mass market publications, that can not be linked (Playboy, Spin, Japan Times etc.)--JJay 02:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, brilliant in fact. So next time, when someone asks for sources can you just provide them, without the drama? I'm bloody unapologetic about not being "arsed" to download a 3Meg file to see an advertisement, or thinking that the burden is upon the person making claims to back them up. - brenneman ^{L} 06:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow. -- Ravn 09:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge to skateboard unless reliable sources are added, not just talked about. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Freebord Manufacturing, since the sources are about this fledgeling company (most say "new", "emerging", "fledgling" - all hallmarks of the not-yet-significant in fact). Or delete if the article still lacks sources by the end of this debate, since I for one don't care enough to put them in myself (since JJay is such a passionate defender perhaps he'd like to do the needful rather than leave an uncited and therefore delete-worthy article?). Just zis Guy you know? 13:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely no passion on my part. If I felt passion, I might have written more initially than: Obvious growing trend. Many news hits from major publications...But why write more when my initial comment exactly summed up the situation? --JJay 21:13, 13 July 2006 (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.