Talk:Grain (surfboard company)

Speedy and notability
Deletion tags added by Hippocrated on October 25 were deleted by Tedder soon after. I am restoring these deletion tags as they are being placed by copyright holders whose rights are being violated. Please leave these tags in place so that the speedy deletion process can act on them. If there are additional requirements to initiating the speedy deletion process, please advise. Thank you. Hippocrated (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not appear at first glance that this article makes use of copyrighted material. You should say on this page exactly which parts of the article you think are copyrighted and link to the original source. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Logo is trademarked and may not be reproduced or used by others. photos are copyrighted materials of Nick LaVecchia and Grain Surfboards and can be found at these links:, . I would contend that there is no requirement that the logo or copyrighted images be used for this article, because there are many of these boards owned by individuals that any one of them could post a photo of a grain board if they wanted to without use of copyrighted images. There is no need to show the logo in order to relate information about the company, as the name itself is entirely unique and recognizable.  There are also a number of accuracy and currency and self-promotion issues related to this article that I have not even addressed which makes the whole article too problematic to retain. For instance, most of the article consists of unverified marketing claims derived from material directly or indirectly sourced from the company itself (e.g. out-of-date magazine interviews of the principals, website content). There are also claims of origination that are unverified except by a source that is originated by the person claiming invention (i.e. Tree To sea: Rich Blundell's "Strip and Feather" rail method which links to a blog by Blundell). The articles being distributed in their entirety at the pages linked in this article are infringements of copyrights held by N'East Magazine and Woodenboat Magazine, though I am uneducated about whether external links to copyright violations are a wikipedia-approved side-stepping of wikipedia copyright policy. This whole article is thinly veiled, gross self promotion that is definitely not encyclopedic, but I believe the copyright issues alone are grounds for deletion. Thanks so much for the time you put into these admin issues. I will wait for response to this talk page, then if none is forthcoming, I guess I'll undo so that the Speedy Deletion process kicks in again. Hippocrated (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tagged the surf board image for deletion as it was uploaded under an inappropriate "website screenshot" rationale. While the article is in need of further third-party references I do not have any other significant concerns about copyright issues. Wikipedia is not responsible for the content of external websites. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to belabor the point, but I am trying to learn about how to participate in the wiki and have been reading all the criteria and trying to understand their application. After my reading, I am surprised that admins would find no copyright infringements with gratuitously applied trademarked content. I have read the articles about copyrighted logo use, and can see that the mark used in the article is unnecessary as there are other means of identifying the subject matter (making this trademarked logo use violate the guidelines for use of logos). For instance why do only the photos qualify as inappropriate "website screenshot" content when the trademarked logo was apparently also from the same sources - and raises questions of copyright infringement as well? Combined with the many other problems with this article (noted above and in the speedy delete headers that were undone) it seems that this article has no encyclopedic value. To help me understand, could someone school me as to why speedy delete criteria A7 (db-corp) is also not enough when this article is blatantly self-promotional and can't make any claim to "importance" since this group is clearly a minor player in surf culture and surf products in a history of surfing that goes back thousands of years and has thousands of other, more significant, history-making players? Thanks so much for your patience and help.Hippocrated (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears the image issues are being dealt with. As far as the article is concerned, it isn't eligible for speedy because it makes claims to notability. Further, it appears it would easily pass the notability guidelines for companies: it's been referenced in a book and articles about the company are quite easily found. Finally, the article may be borderline WP:ADVERT, but it isn't egregiously so- it's written from a relatively neutral point of view and in an encyclopedic tone. tedder (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help... though I have a couple of clarifications if you don't mind: the company was not referenced in a book - only the famed Tom Blake was - he invented the hollow wood board, the surfboard fin, the water housing for cameras, and was the first to surf at Malibu. That sort of illustrates my point. He was notable. That guy deserves a wiki page for sure, but he isn't a key person in this company. Without him, the google search you linked to comes up a lot drier. The other book reference is about boats - this company has nothing to do with them and is not referenced in the source in any way. One of the "key people" apparently worked on boat of a type profiled in the book - a non-encyclopedic reference. The remainder of the sources are commercial websites, user-forums with no authority, and magazine articles in which "key people" and principals in the company were the primary sources.  The last clarifying note has to do with the image issues being dealt with... I was pointing out that the logo that's still on the page was left out of the previous action by Pontificalibus - he deleted a different image... the point I was making is that the logo has all the same characteristics as the image that was deleted, but was not deleted at the same time (plus there are trademark issues with it as well).  I defend wikipedia to a friend (who is a librarian) all the time, and believe in it for all the reasons I should - but I am sure all wikipedia's advocates can do that only if it has a review process that weeds out ads that are cleverly written just to look encyclopedic on the surface. Thanks again to all of you for your hard work. Hippocrated (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * --Any thoughts on my last observations? I think that given that those points weren't really considered, you might think once more as to whether this article constitutes WP:ADVERT (not forgetting the outstanding image use issue) and whether the encyclopedic tone is a red herring masking the actual lack of verifiable WP:V content due to influenced sources WP:RS - clearly necessary to comply with the notability guidelines for companies that Tedder referenced. Also, as I indicated, above, the claim of notability WP:N is made only by piggybacking on a specious reference to a loosely related historical figure of note in the article (Blake) and a reference to a boat project that has little or nothing to do with the subject. Thanks for reconsidering.Hippocrated (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK - guess I'll just contribute some edits to the page to make it less egregiously self-promotional, remove images that are inappropriate "website screenshot" content, and see where it goes. I really think it's a poor use of time though as I just can't see the encyclopedic value of practically any of the content on this page... Thanks Hippocrated (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up

 * Removed content that was not fact WP:ASF, was tenuously related to the article's subject WP:DUE or used as it's references sources that do not meet verifiability policies WP:V due to being influenced by the company WP:RS (magazine interviews) or published by the company WP:SELFPUB (website)
 * Edited to make some statements more factual WP:ASF
 * Made grammatical corrections
 * Removed external link to a website that itself claims to have no relation to the company profiled in the article WP:ELNO
 * Removed external link to content claiming original research WP:ELNO
 * Removed external links to copyrighted work that is not being distributed by the copyright holder WP:ELNEVER

''Original author(s): Please provide reliable sources WP:RS for qualitative claims about this company's products and for the content of the History section other than sources that constitute interviews of the principals. Wikipdedia guidelines allow some references to be from the subject of the article, but secondary sources are necessary to make the article encyclopedic.'' Hippocrated (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What happened Hipocrated? Why did you clean this up? I thought you VERY badly wanted so to have this article deleted that you even created a user account that seems to be intended for this prupose. Your username shows that you are 5-day-old wikipedian (by the time this comment is posted). But with all of your referenced WP:ASF; WP:DUE; WP:V; WP:RS; WP:ASF; WP:ELNO; WP:ELNEVER, you seem to know all the rules and guidelines of wikipedia already! All that in four days? Are you sure you didn't miss out on WP:SOCKS? You may want to include that on the list of rules that you so diligently uphold. But that's not what matters. Really. Since you've spent hours if not, days working on this article, why not provide "reliable sources" WP:RS as well?  And after doing that, what say I put these tags  back? I hope you look more into the history of this article, the talk pages of some of the early contributors, the neutral point of view noticeboard WP:POVN where i have asked help from before you seriously think of it as one of the "ads that are cleverly written just to look encyclopedic on the surface." I've also listed some articles below that you may want to check for notability, advertising, copyright violations, etc.. they require your attention in implementing these rules upon. But these are just the few ones! Theres more.. about a million, I guess. But with your diligence, I'm sure that's not going to be much of a problem. You might notice that some of their contributors simply use WP:IAR. Lastly, if just you like to use the "delete" button, may I recommend that you focus on deleting vandalism. Commit charge (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, I asked for help on this article, and didn't receive any feedback from the original authors. There were no discussions for the page when I first found it (I guess they were deleted) and didn't know where to look for other discussion relating to the page. I see now that "Commit charge" is a user name and not some admin function that occurs automatically. I didn't realize how that page worked until now. I learned all I know about posting to wikipedia from the help pages in wikipedia just recently - as I said, I am interested in participating, so I am trying to learn.  Everything I read made it seem that this article violates policies and guidelines, and as I understand it, the fact that there are other articles that violate guidelines doesn't make that any reason to keep this one. I assume you are one of the original authors, so if you track back the links to the guidelines I posted, you may see the reason for my edits. Please also remember that courtesy is a cornerstone here, so your insinuation that I am registering more than one account is an accusation that I think you might reconsider. I merely asked for the authors to add secondary references that support the evaluative/qualitative comments about this company's products, and removed references that violate wikipedia policy and guidelines. I will re-read the WP:POVN pages, but I didn't think that they applied to this case since I was more concerned with lack of references, use of external links, copyright infringement, and WP:ADVERT. Is there somewhere that I can ask admins about the proper protocol for removing portions of an article as part of the editing process? I wasn't aware it was an issue. Thanks. I believe that the article is somewhat improved as regards information that is free from commercial claims made by the company on their website.  I believe that it's still WP:ADVERT, and still requires references to secondary sources for information describing the company and it's products if this page is to remain. I didn't want to re-add the tags because I already had admins weigh in and their comments led me to believe that the page was problematic, but not eligible for speedy deletion. Just as background for you, I find it insulting to the memory of a great Wisconsonian that a page on Tom Blake was speedy deleted because he had no indication of importance WP:CSD but this company who claims to be based on his work - and the three guys listed as notable WP:N - are somehow considered more noteworthy than a guy who accomplished as much as he did.  To me, that's a gross inconsistency and points to the WP:ADVERT nature of this article.  If Blake had a fully fleshed out page (I will figure out how to do that at some point since it's been deleted), if this page were properly referenced, and if there were not advert elements or claims of notability for the principals, I would certainly feel better about the page. Thanks. Hippocrated (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fender Musical Instruments Corporation

Mackie

Digidesign

Peavey Electronics

Rane Corp.

TASCAM

MCI (audio)

Broadcast Electronics

Pioneer Corporation

DiGiCo

Crest Audio

Yamaha Pro Audio

Orion Platinum

Roland Corporation

Element Skateboards

Samick

Synapse Audio Software

Gibson Guitar Corporation

Santa Cruz Skateboards

Oberheim

Tamiya Corporation

Sessions (clothing company)

Steinberg Cubase

Sessions (clothing company)

Gibson Guitar Corporation

Forsythe Audio

Automated Processes, Inc.

World Industries

Samson Technologies

Zero Skateboards

Volcom

Kryptonics (company)

Ward-Beck Systems

Independent Truck Company

Skittles

You asked for help? feedbacks? First thing you did was place as much deletion tags as you could possibly muster for crying out loud. Imagine yourself as someone who just had grain surfboards in a wikipedia page spark up in his mind, types in the search engine, and see five big red squares with tiny letters about the details, the codes of the site's guidelines and the deletion grounds instead. Five big boxes of nothing but rules. That's more than half the page of the entire article. Would that not BORE you out right at the very moment? It's like longing for a glass of water and getting vinegar instead. Is this THE BASIS of your idea about "courtesy" as being "the cornerstone here"? So that was courteous, huh? No WP:WL, amigo! And if you ever raise a concern on talk pages, please don't expect to have an answer right away. This isn't a chat-room, or an Email client. We have lives to live, and other responsibilities to attend to. I'm sure you also do, so why can't you understand that? And did you say accusations? Do you mind reading again? "(I will figure out how to do that at some point since it's been deleted) ".Commit charge (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I really didn't expect this sort of exchange on Wikipedia. I merely read the criteria for speedy delete, saw that the article met those criteria, determined which applied and placed the tags assuming that was the means to bring the issue to the attention of admins. And it did, and they responded within hours. I don't know if that's the incorrect means to proceed, but the speedy delete criteria must exist for a reason. I see from previous tags that have been placed on this article that it's possible to use a warning that the article is eligible for speedy - I might have used a series of those to raise the issue had I known. I have twice gone to the trouble to explain my actions out of courtesy and in the interest of promoting the Wikipedia spirit and intent. But I have been thrice judged (please read thoroughly) and made the subject of sarcastic invective whereas I have spoken only to the merits of the article. Out of self-respect, and to not further an exchange that appears to me to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, I don't think I can edit this talk page again if it's only to respond to these sorts of judgments of my actions unless discourse can proceed in a more constructive tone. Remember why we're all here. Hippocrated (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What sarcasm? One reason your edits are questionable is that you've only edited this one article. It makes it appear you have an axe to grind against this company. Finally, this article is fairly set up as far as notability is concerned. You're having trouble gaining consensus. tedder (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for jumping in Tedder. I read the "Characteristics of Problem Editors" on the page you linked but didn't see anything there that I've done - I'm looking for guidance, so thanks... One thing's clear - rather than deal directly with the issues of this article, I keep hearing suppositions about my motives. For all the back and forth here, there has been nothing on this talk page in the last few days relating to how this article will get improved. Wouldn't you say that's a problem? Whatever my motives, I definitely didn't get interested in this to be combative or to waste everyone's time. If the consensus between you two is that I should have done something else before requesting speedy delete, and that I acted combatively, I am sorry. I certainly didn't intend it. But I think that I've already explained pretty thoroughly - and no one has offered a constructive correction about what I could have done better. In any case, I believe the article is slightly improved now, and that's what's supposed to happen. Thanks again. Hippocrated (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm fine with you putting in the speedy tag. I linked to WP:TE because it has a picture of the axe being ground. You've cleaned up the article, which is great, now I'd suggest editing other articles too. Articles like this tend to move very slowly, there aren't many interested editors. I'm only here because, as an admin, I was reviewing the proposed speedy deletions and deleting them. tedder (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

206.154.105.61... undid your changes for reasons of accuracy. Hope that's OK - Their website says that they use other vents besides gore-tex vents. Also, delamination is not the only thing that can happen when the pressure changes inside a sealed pressure vessel; the vessel could expand *or* contract. Even if it's trying to expand, it doesn't mean that it will "de-laminate". The outcome of pressure changes is that the pressure changes - unless you know more about the structure of the vessel and the amount of pressure change and which way it's changing, you can't say much about whether anything will happen. Though it's true that the outcome of extreme pressure changes is probable failure in some form - though it sounds like it could take different forms than delamination. Hippocrated (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)