Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springfree trampoline


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Springfree trampoline

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotional article on an uncommon variety of trampoline and its creator, with effectively no independent sourcing to establish notability or most of the facts presented in the article. It's not clear to me that this is even worth mentioning in the Trampoline article, let alone having an article of its own. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Minor coverage, an Australian Design Award, more coverage, including coverage about more awards, and stuff. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of those just repeat the claim that this design won a design award, which is true. However, one design award doesn't establish independent notability on its own. Is there any discussion of this apart from the design award? Are there any sources to establish that this should be treated separately from the Trampoline article? — Gavia immer (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is all about being covered in reliable sources. This has been noted in mulitple reliable sources.  This is the primary criteria of the general notability guideline.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  12:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a lot of coverage, but there is some, as noted, and another example here This is a classic example of a term I would expect a person to encounter, not quite know what it is, and hope that Wikipedia can help. -- SPhilbrick  T  22:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep on the basis of the sources cited   DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 2 July 2010 (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.