Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loaded Boards

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded Boards

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Skateboard manufacturer that does not appear to be sufficiently notable to sustain an article. Provided external sources are limited to one unabashed promo interview. Anything else I can find is in-house. Currently this article does not serve any function other than advertisement. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are all primary or non-independent and I cannot find anything else. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 12:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a yellow pages or a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WP:NEXIST a WP:BEFORE is revealing. The nominator calls out the promotional or advertising feel, but WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing buzzwords without backup into the room is not helpful, nor does it make you sound smart. Show your sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to say acronyms because I did not use any buzzwords. You should look up the useful acronyms I have invoked: acronyms are often used in AfDs as shortcuts, and these particular ones are relevant to my ivote on this AfD discussion. WP:NOTCLEANUP Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. Articles which are promotional require editing, not deletion. Lightburst (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. Throwing out WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE is without any value if you don't demonstrate what sources you found; i.e., they are empty buzzwords. I checked for available sources and found none that were sufficient to demonstrate independent notability. If you claim that there are some - present them here for evaluation. In their absence, the article functions only as an advertisement, not as encyclopedic coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2019 (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.