Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerica

Advertisement. RickK 03:13, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 03:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this one is an advertisement right now, but I think it could be reworked to fit into the skateboarding section. I'll look at it sometime next week, after exams. --Phil Larin 04:25, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, Phil Larin's rewrite looks pretty good. Eurleif 05:04, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone knows, I've rewritten this one so that it won't read as such a crappy advertisement anymore.  Hopefully you'll find it interesting.  I wrote the Ed Templeton entry, if you happen to look at that link : )  --Phil Larin 05:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Google says they're notable in their field, and the rewrite doesn't read like an ad. Keep. -- Cyrius|&#9998 06:38, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's still company PR. Edit some more or delete. Sure, it's no longer what I all wikispam but company publicity. Unless there's something particularly distinguishing about Emerica, they don't deserve an encyclopedia article.
 * Well, nameless crusader, Emerica is notable in skateboarding, which there happen to be many articles on which you might not see the importance in. The article is no longer an advertisment, and reads mostly as an analysis of modern shoe marketing.  The point is, if you're going to discuss skateboarding in Wikipedia, you're going to have to discuss members of the skateboarding industry at some point, otherwise you won't understand the big picture.  This doesn't warrent the posting of advertisements, but of information. . . Phil Larin 14:41, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite. It's now an encyclopedia entry instead of an ad, and Emerica is a major player in a major sport/pastime.  Nice job, Phil. - Lucky 6.9 15:07, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Philwelch 23:59, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Remove manufacturer references or delete. I can write about top-line skis without talking about K2. I can write about quality watches without discussing Rolex. If Emerica were the only player in the game, or if it had introduced technology so radical and sport-changing that even non-boarders knew about it, I might feel differently. But as it stands, it doesn't look a whole lot different than a big Nike ad to me. Denni 06:06, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
 * Metasyntactic variables aren't very known by non-programmers, but we still have an article on them. Why is an article on a company any different? Eurleif 02:14, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Because no one's using them or Riemannian manifolds or Wolf-Rayet stars or neurofibromatosis to try to shill me out of a few bucks so I can be this week's brand-name kid on the block. I have no difficulty mentioning commercial interests within an article where appropriate; for instance, General Motors was instrumental in designing and releasing (at no cost) to the auto safety interest the plans for what is now the standard crash test dummy. However,if Nike, why not Adidas. If Adidas, why not Puma. If Puma, why not ASICS. If ASICS, why not Saucony. And so on and so on. Next we have sports glasses. Someone want to do an article on Ice Tech? Denni 06:55, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
 * Well, so what if Riemann manifolds aren't for sale? Does that make them inherently better or worse, more or less encyclopedic? It's completely POV to exclude articles solely based on the fact that they happen to be about commercial entitities; rather, they should be judged based on their contents. Not every mention of a corporation is "PR", and not every brand name is an advertisement.  I see no reason for such extreme sensitivity to hurt the prospects of an article which was contributed in good faith by a valuable contributor. Meelar 06:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, we have an article on Nike too (or we ought to). This is not an advert; it's simply a well-written encyclopedia article about a company.  That's admirable.  Keep. Meelar 19:45, 2 May 2004 (UTC)