Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Sierra Sport

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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Sierra Sport[edit]

Someone has created an article for a business which is not notable. This article was an an orphaned article. It is not referenced. Its multiple edits today and non-substantiated facts stuck out. Recommend ~~speedy delete~~ delete. Ronbo76 18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to recommend an article for speedy deletion you just have to add the appropriate tag to it. In this case it would be {{db-ad}}. This is much easier than going through the AfD process and doesn't take five days to complete (assuming an admin agrees with your assesment. See WP:CSD for more details. Good luck, Gwernol 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If High Sierra Sport is not deserving of an article on Wikipedia, then Jansport should definitely be ousted. I believe that everything should be on Wikipedia, no matter how small. I'm working on the information and am doing my best to improve it. Thank you for your patience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quinnhsu (talk • contribs).
- Contrary to your opinion, Wikipedia's notability guidelines emphatically rule out the possibility of "everything, no matter how small" being included. As regards Jansport, inclusion is not an indicator of notability and perhaps that article should be nominated for AfD as well. That said, delete per WP:CORP, the article cites no non-trivial third-party reliable sources (in fact it cites no sources AT ALL) to verify the claims being made. In addition, such claims IMHO do sufficiently assert the notability of the company, per Bwithh below. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 12:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reason above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.85.130.252 (talk • contribs).
Keep The fact that the company is the official supplier to the US Ski team [1] is not a small thing and in itself confers some notability. The Hoover's page on HSS [2] includes a link to a Goldman Sachs analyst's report on their latest retail sales numbers; another indication that they are notable. I'm sure with further research other significant mentions of High Sierra as a company could be found. Of course its up to the editors of the article to do this work, but I believe the company is notable and the article can be expanded. Gwernol 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1) Just because a company is commented on by Goldman Sachs or another bulge-bracket investment bank doesn't make it automatically notable. 2) The link you pointed out that leads to the Goldman analyst video does not mention High Sierra at all . Its a brief video chat about an overview of the US retail sector in general Bwithh 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing a claim to encyclopedic notability here for this 40 person company. Supplying bags to the US ski team is just a sponsorship deal and is not notable. Bwithh 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well kown company in it's outdoors genre. Article already includes independent profiles. Alot of Google News Archive articles [3]. (Some are press releases, many are not). --Oakshade 07:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is my stance that a well-written, correctly formatted, and referenced article deserves to stay, or at least have its content remain. ~ Flame vip e r 22:20, 10 January 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.