Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nidecker

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. Kudos to the participants for finding new sources. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nidecker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is surprising to me as the article claims the organization has been in existence since 1887 but a WP:BEFORE search turns up almost nothing. I do not see WP:NCORP met, neither do I see WP:ORGDEPTH. Celestina007 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs some work, and will likely be little more than a stub, but I found a few sources for this company. [1] [2] I think one issue with finding sources is that the company is Swiss, making English sources a little harder to find. Angryapathy (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [3] is in-depth coverage by a prominent national newspaper, Le Temps. Sandstein 14:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [4] is an interview with the CEO which covers the history and activities of the company in a well-known B2B journal, Source Magazine, in English. Tomw_n 15:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether Board Sport Source is well-known or not, I don't know; I doubt that it's the same as The Source, though. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on the sources provided above. I have also improved the article now. Peter303x (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Putting aside all the interviews, trade publications, and the like, the only RS sigcov seems to be from the Le Temps article. And per WP:MULTSOURCES "A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." If someone can find at least one more solid source, which isn't a product review, news of the company launching or acquiring another brand, or interview of the brothers, I'll be happy to reconsider my position. As it stands, this is little more than a promo piece on a non-notable ROTM business that makes products. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of additional sources found by Sandstein, below. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- DoubleGrazing, there's more in-depth coverage in Swiss media: [5] is a company profile in Le Nouvelliste, the principal regional newspaper; [6] is a Luzerner Zeitung article (subsidiary of a national media group) with also in-depth coverage in the context of an acquisition that made Nidecker the second-biggest snowboard manufacturer worldwide behind Burton Snowboards. More specialized coverage in sports media is also easily found. Sandstein 05:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks @Sandstein: I agree that those two sources (esp. the latter) look pretty solid, and on that basis I'm happy to change my !vote. I do think those need to be added as cites to the article, though. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2021 (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.