Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. Obviously, the canvassed votes were disregarded. However, those delete votes made (at least partly) in response to the canvassing were not helpful either; at best they included string of TLAs. The actual debate, therefore, ended up taking place between just a few people on each side. The key issue here is whether the sources are sufficient to show notability. It is obvious that each of the four sources offers covers the subject nontrivially; the question now is whether the sources themselves are significant enough. The consensus is that the UCSD Guardian articles alone do not show notability. WP:GNG makes no mention of whether sources need to be local, but WP:CORP does state that coverage cannot be solely local. In the end, it comes down to the other two non-local sources, and an agreement does not appear to have been reached on their status. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muir Skate Longboard Shop

edit
Muir Skate Longboard Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the coverage I'm finding for this company is either local and/or not independent of the subject. Contested prod. See my proposal at the end of this discussion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the administrator reading this. The opinions of the "Keep" voters are organized at the bottom of the page because in this long debate, everyone's points were in fragments.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's one source, not multiple. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One international source and multiple local sources. It's notable as hell, and in addition, it's part of UCSD. Even though it's off-campus now, it was the one of the first board stores on a college campus. That is BIG. You have literally no idea how notable Muir Skate is. It's the biggest online longboarding store and has a huge presence on the campus. PÆonU (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You literally have no idea how most editors consider local news as not showing notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's my question. Why are there so many skate articles like this with just as many, and even less sources? And another question, since the store was on the UCSD campus for many years, wouldn't it be protected like the other UCSD articles? PÆonU (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If businesses on a campus are non-notable (none are protected unless they are notable), they could be merged to the college. I'm not sure if this could be merged since it's not on the campus anymore. I'm not tracking to attack your article or anything. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found some more sources.

Oct 2005: [2]

Oct 2007: [3]

Nov 2009: [4] PÆonU (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • Joe Chill, when you say You literally have no idea how most editors consider local news as not showing notability., I'm curious. If you are looking for multiple coverage in something, because you believe in following the notability guideline, then why not consider local news sources as well? Is there somewhere in that suggested guideline that is against them? Dream Focus 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news search for their original name, Muir Surf & Sport, showed one result. [5] It gets coverage there. So that's another source found. Dream Focus 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescue. This store is notable and is still part of the UCSD campus. It has international notability and has been in The Guardian multiple times. Therefor, I think this article deserves a chance to be worked on. PÆonU (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PÆonU (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This might be hard for some to believe but I'm new at this sort of thing. I've been relisting and closing AFDs for a few years but until now, almost all my nominations have been of the hoaxy variety. Slam dunk deletes and I have no problem doing my best to get bullshit deleted. I don't like telling good faith editors who create pages on subjects that they care about that their submissions are not "good enough" for Wikipedia. In this case, I found the article doing new page patrol and it seemed like a cut and dry case of a company with little or no notability outside of the local area.
  • Such AFDs are quite common. A new editor creates an article about a local restaurant or something, it get's taken to AFD where everybody says "delete", quotes a bunch of WP:TLAs, parrots the common term "significant coverage in reliable sources", and insists that the coverage be "non local". Well, I went back and reviewed our notability guidelines and it does not mention anything about how geographically diverse the coverage has to be. A restaurant in a small town that's been a local institution for 50 years will likely have quite a bit of local press coverage which one might call "significant" so why not have an article on it? If we are to continue arguing in deletion debates that coverage needs to be widespread then that needs to be written into the guidelines. This is an issue I may bring up at the village pump.
  • My main concern with having a lot of articles about small local companies like this is that they vulnerable to some of the same risks as articles about marginally notable living people. Most will be on few watchlists. Let's say you have an article about a local restaurant and a dis-satisfied customer or a competitor adds in some unverified but credible sounding bull about them failing several health inspections or the premises being unsafe or in the case of a store, about the product being safe. This can actually harm the business in question. TL;DR "wall of text" over :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just local, it has been featured in an international magazine. Even if it was purely local, the rules say nothing about local sources not being good enough. Your interpretation only limits the use of Wikipedia. An important part of this website is the ability to change things yourself. If a dissatisfied customer vandalizes the page, it will be caught fast. There are plenty of people checking recent edits for vandalism, so I wouldn't worry about that. PÆonU (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to something, Im not familiar with the area but if there is a category/article that includes stuff relating to campus culture it would make sense to have it there. This might be construed as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but almost all major universities have a bunch of peripheral businesses that are only notable because they are within walking distance of campus and everyone who has attended has been there, e.g. Harvard Book Store Grolier Poetry Bookshop.--Savonneux (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete nothing in gnews, the one hit that Dream Focus found makes a mockery of the significant coverage test as per WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you make a mockery of the system by attacking me(with a false accusation of something I clearly wasn't doing) in another AFD [6] and then six minutes later, your next edit of the day, is to post here insulting me directly. This isn't the type of article you normally participate in. How did you find it, if you weren't following me? You seem rather angry once again, had a fit, then followed me to another AFD I participated in, which you wouldn't have found or bothered with otherwise, and made a comment like that. Taken in context with your past behavior, this seems to be wikistalking. Dream Focus 21:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I laugh at your accusation of me having a fit or being so angry. None of which is true. I participate in a wide range of deletion discussions. and have partipated in an AfD on a very similar topic last month: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orchard_Skate_Shop. suggest you WP:CHILL with paranoid accusations, none of which refutes my claims for deletion here. have a good day. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no significant claims to or references for notability (as per WP:CORP) in the article. The references included and the only mentions I could find through Google searches are nothing more than trivial mentions. The article appears to exist solely as a soapbox. --Pumpmeup 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the international sources and newspaper articles? This is getting ridiculous. I mean, come on. Is there even any point in debating this out anymore if nobody is going to listen? I think I should stop wasting my time debating this out and give up on the article if nobody will listen to logic. PÆonU (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Delete While I feel the the Guardian meets the requirement of being independent (as it is not a press vehicle for the store, or similar), while rereading WP:CORP I came across the line "attention solely from local media…is not an indication of notability", which means that for these purposes, while independent, the Guardian isn't an indication of notability, leaving only the short non-local mention; so barring any new developments I feel it fails the notability guidelines as written. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know "canvassing" even existed. Muir Skate was featured in an international magazine. Don't forget, they are not just a company, they are much like the Harvard bookstore. I bet 99% of the country has no idea of either stores' existence, but they're both part of the school's culture and are protected. With your delete vote, you're basically stating that articles like the Harvard Bookstore aren't worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Why not nominate that article for deletion too? PÆonU (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
  2. When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

Referring to 1., multiple local newspaper articles (The Guardian is a HUGE magazine) and an international source meets the requirements. WP:GNG states that this article needs "reliable sources." Reliable sources are any reputable magazines or newspapers, not just national and international ones. Your interpretation only causes unnecessary deletion. Some idiot tried to use this interpretation of reliable sources to try (and fail) to delete the page on Black Angus Steakhouse, which is gigantic in California. Until you get the rules changed, you can either search for and delete the thousands of articles with only local notability or leave them like they should be. The rules encourage more good articles, not less good articles.

Referring to 2., Muir Skate, being the first board store on a campus, has turned UCSD into one of, if not the best, skate schools. Thanks to Muir Skate, a huge population of students use longboards to travel around campus. While they were on the campus, they offered skate classes to students, so even non-customers with no prior experience could start skating. Because of this, I believe Muir Skate has affected the school's culture and athletics. UCSD has over 22,000 students, whereas Harvard has about 1,000 less students. Another point brought up by Savonneux is that the Harvard Book Store and Grolier Poetry Bookshop have articles. Since UCSD is a larger school, it should have articles about it's campus businesses too. PÆonU (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify my recommendation was to merge, my opinion is that since that most of its notability is derived from the school it should be included in the school or a school related article. It's not prejudicial, most small or even most non public companies don't meet WP:CORP unless they have done something remarkably unique (and even then most are only referenced in the aricles about the unique thing they have done.)--Savonneux (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muir Skate was the first board store on a continental U.S. college campus. I can't say the same about the Harvard bookstore. PÆonU (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an international magazine they were featured in. [7] PÆonU (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I do not feel that the sources provided establish notability. They seem to be passing mentions or very local coverage. The relentless canvassing is distasteful as well. Reyk YO! 07:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, you're right. An interview with an international magazine is something any schmuck can get. Sadly, the Transworld Business link is not the full article, but it's definitely not a quick mentioning. Don't forget, when a new shoe store, skate store, or card store opens, it isn't announced by a national publication. Something has to be notable to even get a single sentence about them in a national or international publication. PÆonU (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Potential" is being extremely cautious. This is the most extreme and blatant example of canvassing and attempting to stir up personal attacks that I have ever seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I read the article in Concrete Wave, which has been referred to throughout this AfD discussion as an "international magazine" - at a guess, "international" is intended to mean "outside the US" as Concrete Wave is published in Canada, but that's just my guess - in any case it's not a local publication. The same applies to the Transworld Business site which mentioned the store in 2006. These two articles are, however, not enough to show that the company meets WP:CORP to my mind - they do not constitute significant coverage in multiple independent publications. All the misbehaviour and canvassing don't exactly help the article's case, but even if it hadn't happened I don't see how the article could be saved. (Yes, I have searched for additional sources.) --bonadea contributions talk 16:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Can you explain how the coverage is trivial? It may not be significant but a Q&A with a skate magazine and one of the two UCSD Guardian write-ups is detailed.Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
disruptive editor's attempt to co-opt this discussion compressed

Compromise

edit

This is the classic deletionist vs. inclusionist vs. middle ground debate. Everything that can be said about the article has already been repeated by all sides and there's no point in continuing the debate. To the administrator who decides the fate of this article, if you're leaning towards the deletionists' side, at least merge it here. Muir Skate was the first campus board store in the continental U.S., has multiple local sources and an international source (not even the Harvard Book Store has that), and has had an effect on the culture of a campus with over 20,000 people. If that's not notable enough for an article, it at least deserves a merge. PÆonU (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I second this proposition. Those who know the longboarding community understand that this store carries quite a good deal of significance. Furthermore, it is not limited to obscurity as a local shop, because it has also become a popular online retailer of longboarding goods and is well-known throughout the longboarding community in the United States. Moogleluvr (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offsite canvassing. I just found this (google cache). Therefore, I have added the "notaballot" tag to this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Made the mistake of actually clicking that link, Ron, and some of my optimism for the future of the human race has died. I'm sure you're huddled in a corner in the fetal position, trembling and sobbing, because some of those mental giants have figured out how to copy and paste the words "Ron Ritzman is a douche" five hundred times. Who could have foreseen that brilliant stratagem? Reyk YO! 08:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: *sigh* --Savonneux (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that Ron Ritzman is such a Douche Ron Ritzman is such a Douche Ron Ritzman is such a Douche... comment is in poor taste, but the rest of the thread is great and illustrates a beautiful point. I think all Wikipedia editors from both the inclusionist and deletionist side should read that thread. PÆonU (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is not standard practice to have this long ranging discussion, your continual deep desperation to keep this article is obvious. not to mention potential canvassing and possible conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The goal was to end the discussion. It will make the administrator's decision much simpler if both sides summarize their view. My goal is to make the section below an easy-to-read section instead of this jumbled up mess above my post. I do not have a conflict of interest. I've tried to save articles before, but rarely find one that is being deleted for no reason. I don't have a deep desperation either, I have the principles that you're missing. I'm not going to let people get away with giving a good article the axe. It goes against the very reason Wikipedia was created. PÆonU (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
most of the excessive text comes from you. suggest you cease with this desperation. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
asking people to restate their arguments is ridiculous. cease with this trying to force the issue here. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this right. Option A: the administrator reads all the clutter above or option B: the administrator reads an argument-free summary. Is A that much better? I'm not asking for you to write a manifesto, this is just an efficient method of doing an AfD. PÆonU (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is NOT standard practice, knowing you, you will just rebut everything again. many people post their arguments and do not revisit an AfD page. your request is unreasonable and not standard practice. I suggest you cease immediately. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Do as I say, not as I do," eh? Love it.
Actually, I wouldn't. Now that I think about it, this cannot become the standard halfway through the debate. It was a mistake to try that. However, I'm keeping my summary, which contained some of the stuff above and new things that prove that it should be kept. Have you even read it?

Summary

edit

Due to the lack of structure in this debate, I would like to put the "keep" voters' ideas, plus additional evidence in one summary. I'd prefer it if any attacks on it be done in a new section below the summary, because the goal of this is that with this summary, I am completely done with the debate and do not need to return to the page until a decision is made. Literally nobody here will change their mind, so more debating is useless. The text in quotes comes directly from WP:CORP.


"When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."

Muir Skate has had a significant effect on the culture of UCSD, a college with at least 20,000 students. The store's skate lessons increased the number of skateboarders in the college, making skateboarding culture more popular than ever. The events it hosted on campus, one of which introduced the store to a writer for Concrete Wave, have not stopped since they left the campus. They are close enough to the campus to host UCSD skate events like the giant Gravity Slidefest, so they are still very much affecting UCSD culture. [8]


"Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."

Muir Skate has been featured three times in the UCSD Guardian and the owner of the store was interviewed by international magazine Concrete Wave (volume 6 issue 4, page 31). Additional media attention comes from Transworld Business, which is a national magazine owned by the Bonnier Corporation, a large American publisher. Unfortunately, the entire article is not available, but the beginning of it is free to read. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Although the Guardian is a local publication, Transworld Business is a national publication and Concrete Wave is an international publication. Upon reviewing the links provided, it becomes fairly obvious that Muir Skate receives "attention from international or national, or at least regional, media," and does not receive "attention solely from local media or media of limited interest and circulation."


"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."

All three UCSD Guardian articles and the interview in Concrete Wave meet this requirement. Although the article in Transworld Business is not available as a whole, from the looks of the text available and the fact that it was published a year after the store's opening, it was most likely not a short mention.


Although this article is still in it's infancy, it is well sourced and meets WP:CORP. Therefor, this article should not be deleted or merged. PÆonU (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Despite attempts by PÆonU and the editors who have responded to his canvassing, they have not managed to show significant evidence of notability. Instead they have come up with arguments which do not relate to Wikipedia policy, such as "This shop was on the UCSD campus for years and because of that, it is notable", and "Has affected UCSD culture", including appeals to "other stuff exists", such as "It has more sources than Harvard Book Store", and "Why are there so many skate articles like this with just as many, and even less sources". PÆonU and DreamFocus have tried to make much of coverage in the UCSD Guardian, but coverage in a student newspaper within one university is a very limited form of coverage, and it is also debatable whether it can be regarded as an independent source. "Local (originally on-campus) shop gets coverage in student on-campus newspaper" does not establish notability. I could go on further to discuss more details of what has been said, but it would not alter the overall point, which is that, despite a very concerted effort, those arguing for "keep" have failed to produce evidence of the sort of substantial coverage required by the notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough seems to exist right now to demonstrate notability. Maybe they'll get some press in the next year or two and can try again then. But next time, don't try to game the system. ~PescoSo say•we all 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/leaning keep Editors appear to be misreading the General Notability Guidelines and the(edit: oops it is in WP:CORP mot GNG) Corporate specific one. Local coverage can still be significant coverage. "Solely" is the key word so please don't disregard local sources. And why is Transworld Business being disregarded? Transworld Skateboarding is certainly a big name and their business publication should have a decent reputation. A write up(note that only part of it is shown here) by one of their editors establishes some notability. And Concrete Wave Magazine does not need to be the Wall Street Journal to be RS. That Q&A can certainly improve the article and it is not local or even regional. It is also not a trivial mention even if it isn't a multi-page story. Canvassing is frustrating but that should not impact if the business is notable according to GNG or CORP.Cptnono Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, I was thinking the same thing after the first 2 !votes in this discussion. (before the whole thing blew up) The GNG doesn't say anything about the coverage needing to be non local (but WP:CORP does). With a little leaning I could probably make a pretty good case for keeping this article. In an ideal wiki world, that's how AFD would work. That is, editors, some with different interpretations of the guidelines, discussing how they should be applied to a particular article. Instead, AFDs become battlegrounds between those dead set on "getting the cruft off wikipedia" and those who think the world's going to end if some website doesn't have an article on their favorite subject. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A couple more stories from San Diego or something in Thrasher would make it more clear cut for me. As is I see the potential but am not completely on board. And I totally understand some frustration based on the canvasing and the owners or fans potentially using this as some sort of sign of pride.Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be relying on your own interpretation of the guidelines (as do we all), I see no emphasis placed on "solely" or other indication that it is indeed "the key word". This brings us back to the point of AfDs (among other things): determining consensus on the appropriate interpretation of notability guidelines. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that an article from Thrasher would certainly give a skateboarding-related article credibility, you have to keep in mind that the longboarding community gets much less coverage than the trick-skateboard community. The Concrete Wave is to longboarding what Thrasher, Transworld, and Skateboarding Magazine are to trick-skateboarding. Moogleluvr (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear It isn't that Concrete Wave is not reputable. In fact, it is why I lean keep. A couple more magazine stories (it doesn't even need to be at the same level as Concrete Wave) is needed to establish that there is a good amount of coverage on the subject.Cptnono (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to take it to the Village Pump or to the guideline's talk page if you want to argue that local media coverage can not be considered. Yes, I am emphasizing "solely" since people are disregarding it. "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." doesn't mean disregard local media. It could be argued that since it is only skate magazines that the audience is limited but that needs to be considered separate from any assertion that local media cannot assert at least some notability. Two sources are not local or even regional (one is in Canada?) and have at least a national reach (I believe Transworld is distributed throughout the world). So they need to be considered along with the local media. It still may not be enough coverage but I feel it is close.Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The canvassing atttempts should not affect your position at all. You either believe it meets the requirements or it does not, you don't say delete because you don't like one person who is involved in this. Dream Focus 04:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be some knee-jerk "voting" to the canvasing. It makes sense that some think the subject fails the requirements but I hope editors can focus on that and not the shenanigans.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I mentioned in ANI that a good way to get an article deleted is to canvas for keeps. Are some of these new "delete" !votes a knee jerk reaction to the canvassing, probably. They probably didn't know this article and its AFD existed until it was bought up on ANI. How would any of them have !voted if they ran across it by other means, who knows. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the irony is that PÆonU has in fact drawn more attention to this AfD that he hoped for. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text below has been copy-pasted from PÆonU's userpage. I have been following this discussion and noticed the deletion of these points from the discussion, which I feel is a very underhanded and dishonest act on the part of those rallying for the deletion of this page. I believe that both sides should have the opportunity to have all of their points presented on level grounds for this to constitute a true discussion, and therefore, I have copy-pasted the text below from PÆonU's userpage. While I can understand the frustration both sides are experiencing in this debate, keep in mind Wikipedia was founded upon trust in the community to do the right thing, and playing dirty by deleting the other side's points is entirely uncalled for. Thank you for your consideration. Moogleluvr (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."

Muir Skate has had a significant effect on the culture of UCSD, a college with at least 20,000 students. The store's skate lessons increased the number of skateboarders in the college, making skateboarding culture more popular than ever. The events it hosted on campus, one of which introduced the store to a writer for Concrete Wave, have not stopped since they left the campus. They are close enough to the campus to host UCSD skate events like the giant Gravity Slidefest, so they are still very much affecting UCSD culture. [15]


"Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."

Muir Skate has been featured three times in the UCSD Guardian and the owner of the store was interviewed by international magazine Concrete Wave (volume 6 issue 4, page 31). Additional media attention comes from Transworld Business, which is a national magazine owned by the Bonnier Corporation, a large American publisher. Unfortunately, the entire article is not available, but the beginning of it is free to read. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Although the Guardian is a local publication, Transworld Business is a national publication and Concrete Wave is an international publication. Upon reviewing the links provided, it becomes fairly obvious that Muir Skate receives "attention from international or national, or at least regional, media," and does not receive "attention solely from local media or media of limited interest and circulation."

"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."

All three UCSD Guardian articles and the interview in Concrete Wave meet this requirement. Although the article in Transworld Business is not available as a whole, from the looks of the text available and the fact that it was published a year after the store's opening, it was most likely not a short mention. "

Most of the IPs didn't present the best reasoning. If one of them came back and actually referred to guidelines it might be better to address that over the editor. You can always drag the editor to a noticeboard somewhere but I don't think there is any doubt that there was some poor form on this one. So any response to his assertions or was it already covered and I missed it?Cptnono (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editors did not give any reasoning at all. They simply responded to a call on a forum to copy and paste "votes" to this discussion. There is no reason to suppose that they had any understanding of the issues at all. Of course they may have, but we cannot reasonably argue on the basis of speculation as to what they might have said under different circumstances. This issue has to be decided on the basis of what arguments have been put forward, and on that basis the arguments put forward by those editors would be of very little value, even apart from their copy-paste canvassed background. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That comment sucks. You essentially just disregarded any comments made by not gaming editors since they said the same thing.[21] Can you respond to this? I get that the IP behavior sucks but it would be appreciated if you could respond or point to timestamps where you have already done so.Cptnono (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moogleluvr (talk · contribs) that text was already collapsed into the box right above this. There were barely any comments on this article until it turned into a drama fest. The worst that was going to happen was a no prejudice delete or a merge, now all the relevant pages are going to be on multiple watchlists and possibly semi-protected. Is pasting redundant text / breaking format really going to help? --Savonneux (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Moogleluvr could perhaps have assumed a little more good faith. I do not think that the collapsing of the relevant section was "a very underhanded and dishonest act": it was done quite openly, not underhandedly, and I see nothing to indicate that it was dishonest. There have been genuine concerns that there was an "attempt to co-opt this discussion", and an honest attempt to deal with that attempt. If Moogleluvr had said "I think that attempt was mistaken" then that would be one thing, but "underhanded and dishonest" is another. Also it is, of course, inaccurate to describe the collapsing of part of the discussion as "deletion". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cptnono says that editors appear to be misreading the guidelines, and I think quite a few other comments above are based on the same view. I don't think this is particularly so. It is possible to pick out various bits and pieces of coverage, and to say that while most of it has been local there has also been some non-local coverage, so we can check off particular points listed in guidelines. However, I do not think this is a good approach. The guidelines are guidelines, not check lists. The overall spirit of the guidelines is that there should have been substantial coverage, not just fragmentary coverage. The most substantial coverage is not just local, as for example in a local town newspaper, but provincial, in a student campus newspaper. The other coverage is mostly fragmentary, and overall it is not possible to say that this business has received substantial attention. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. We totally agree on somethings and not others but not as I would have expected. Completely agree that the coverage could be read as not substantial. I also agree that a college paper is not the best to rely on for notability. However, the coverage in sources with a national or international reach are not fragmentary. We could right an article about it off those easily. I don't know if those two big magazines is enough though. There is also the question of if they were solicited which opens up another can of worms. This article to me is literally one story in a paper or magazine away from being a slam dunk. I'm not positive as it is though. It is much closer than editors reacting to some completely lame gaming of the system would have a casual reader of the conversation believe. Cptnono (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I accept that it is closer than some comments, including perhaps some of mine, might make it look. However, I still think it is not enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal. As the "douche" who started this mess, I would like to suggest that this AFD be closed and the article moved out of mainspace to the incubator. A few editors have suggested that it might be possible to demonstrate notability so let's give them their shot. After a reasonable amount of time, let's say 7 days after PÆonU's block expires. The article can be moved back into mainspace and a new AFD started. Hopefully one free of drama. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
disagree, there is sufficient arguments to let these AfD run its course. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muir_Skate_Longboard_Shop&oldid=1304300041"