Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Herring Surf


 * 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, consensus reads that subject is notable but article may need cleanup. To what extent needs to be decided by editors, as significant extra information and refs have been added since nomination. Orderinchaos 06:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Herring Surf
Procedural nomination after removal of db-spam from article as part of my continued drive to clean up Category:Companies of Australia. A non-notable chain of surf stores in a single state. Article does not meet WP:CORP, lacks any references, and does not demonstrate notability, and would be unlikely to do. Another example of corpcruft. Thewinchester (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Thewinchester (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

*Still a delete - putting references on this discussion page does not improve the article nor does it allow editors to consider the references (which probably would work better as inline citations) with regards the content of the article. Put these in as citations and you might have a better chance. At this stage as per OIC it still fails WP:CORP -- VS talk 08:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete WP:CSD. While I know that this option has been considered and refused, this article reads like a press release and in over 2 1/2 years it has not found a single independent reliable source. The chain consists of only 6 stores in one state. Note that an earlier VfD discussion is available on the talk page. -- Mattinbgn/talk 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment definitely not a speedy. Article now has 6 independant reliable sources.  Neil   ╦  09:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the 2nd Oh, and it has been through AFD before and passed - nominator is aware of this and still did not bother to mention it. See the article's talk page.  If it's been through AFD, it cannot be speedied. Nor should it even be deleted.  Neil   ╦  10:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I noted the VfD in my initial comment. I have seen the changes and still consider the subject to be non-notable.  At least half of the  references refer to sponsorship arrangements, in particular suicide prevention.  Each of those references are mainly about the charity and not the subject and such do not assert notability.  Another reference is about a concert at a Skate park and only mentions the subject in passing as a sponsor.  That leaves one reference, about Victor Tilly, that is close to suitable.  That is not enough for me. Also, coverage purchased as part of a sponsorship deal isn't quite independent. -- Mattinbgn/talk 11:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. While the article lacks third party sources, Google News Archive does show that there are some sources, they are not sufficient in my view to warrant a keep. I would support keeping with stronger sources. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep given Neil's improvements. Capitalistroadster 09:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not *quite* a G11, but definitely fails WP:CORP beyond a doubt. Orderinchaos 02:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Supporter of community work, as evidenced by the Tasmanian government , backers of community skate tour programs .  Interview with store founder about his company by The Mercury , and about their work to prevent youth suicide, same paper .  Clearly meets WP:CORP.  Neil   ╦  08:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - that's what I've been doing for the last 20 minutes - article is now referenced sufficiently to pass WP:CORP. Please consider readdressing your arguments? Neil   ╦  09:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I am only just on the keep side - as I had a similar tendency to Mattinbgn to note that all but one of the references are more about charity work - however the changes to the article and the fact that there is one suitable reference gets me to weak keep. This article will be touch and go - one or more direct references that work towards meeting WP:CORP more closely will help your case indubitably.-- VS  talk 13:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator, reaffirming my nomination for the article's deletion. The article still clearly fails WP:CORP, and regardless of the number of links you could find for the article, a company with six stores operating in a single state does not notability make. Worse still, the work done on the article just reaffirms how it fails to meet WP:CORP, as it now reads like an advertisement and a promotional piece. Please, i'm begging you, just let it go off to the big great page dumpster in the sky, or at least the one in the middle of a massive server farm buried deep below some old nuclear bomb shelter. Thewinchester (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closer - please note that Thewinchester's "delete" is to his own nomination. Thewinchester, why are you so desperate for this article to be deleted?  Did Victor Tilley drive that big red camper van over your cat?  Neil   ╦  09:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that his wording did indeed state "as nominator" as the first two words. I've included them in the bold to make it even clearer. Orderinchaos 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Careful Neil, because you're dangerously close to an WP:AGF warning. I'm just sick of inclusionists thinking everything should be on WP and continuing to load it up and up with truckloads of absolute junk - like this article. And I think the closing admin will be smart enough to read as nominator right at the front of the line. Thewinchester (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to warn me about assuming good faith. Perhaps you could bear that in mind when you try to delete the work of others who did not intend to "load Wikipedia up and up with truckloads of absolute junk".  Are you assuming good faith on their part?   Neil   ╦  16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, I'm happy that this article now meets WP:CORP, just. Lankiveil 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep Its length of service, domination of a local market and its charity work brings the subject over the notability line. Zivko85 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, in addition to the current article, there are plenty of google news archive results that can be used to add more verified details. John Vandenberg 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Just passes WP:CORP for me, with a touch of WP:LOCAL though, this business is a major one in Tasmania. It's another sponsorship essentially, but what passes it for me is that the company has the naming rights for the Red Herring Pro Bodyboarding Championships at Clifton Beach, which is part of the IBA Pro World Tour. --Canley 01:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:CORP. Added some information about its founding. We can't ignore our cousins down south, now can we? Recurring dreams 01:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete references are all about other events which RHS happen to sponsor / be associated with... ie are trivial mention of Red Herring Surf.Garrie 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * oh, I also don't see that the Suicide Prevention Steering Committee are reliable sources with regard to establishing notability of commercial organisations under WP:ORG - unless that organisations' primary role is in welfare &/or suicide support service.Garrie 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Canley &#91;&#91;User talk:Savin Me&#124;Savin Me]] 05:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the Thewinchesters warm welcome on my talk page I show up personally here and vote for keeping the article that I once created. Isn't the big red camper van enough reason to keep it? No kidding, mates, although the brand may not be known throughout the U.S. or even the mainland of Australia, it has a strong local reputation. Of course the shop owners put in their advertisment into wikipedia, as do many manufacturers. Why don't you just delete that stuff and keep the article? Dbach 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and cleanup. Article most definitely needs to be cleaned up, but I think there's enough potential for a decent article pursuant to WP:CORP. Seems to have a strong local following, though it may not be well-known to an Anglocentric audience. Firestorm 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.