Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flip tricks (skateboarding)

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 but clean-up and add sources. The nomination was based on this being unsourcable, but the consensus seems to be that it is; so demonstrate that is by sourcing it, or it's going to get deleted. Articles can only survive so many AfD's under the "it's sourcable" assertion; sooner or later it becomes apparent that they can't be. --Haemo 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flip tricks (skateboarding)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article cannot be attributed to reliable sources. This article may be improved if sources are come across, but as it stands, there is no particular reason to keep it. -- VegitaU 02:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is decent context for the different moves, should be listified if it can be reliably sourced. This is something the author could work on in userpace if the deletion goes ahead here. Deiz talk 02:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree: As taken from the talk page, I have no vendetta against this article or rancor against the authors, but there are policies and guidelines that must be followed and, from the comments I received, I have little confidence that they will be followed. -- VegitaU 02:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and WP:NOT#INFO. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I noticed you prodded the article, which another editor removed, then you warned them for vandalism for doing that. You can't give editors vandalism warnings for de-prodding an article, they're entitled to remove a prod they don't agree with. Anyway, delete it unless sources can be found, which may be unlikely from the talk page. Crazysuit 02:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. These tricks MUST be sourceable. They have been around for years, every kid knows them. - Dean Wormer 02:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-Weak Delete. This is kind of unique. WP:NOT#INFO is forefront in this case, no question, but this article also has the very distinctive flavor of a howto document, if only slightly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:OR, and WP:NOT#INFO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirohisat (talk • contribs)
Delete - i'm not certian, but when tricks for skateboarding get that specific is it even possible to have a universally held name for each one? Even if we could find verifiable sources, there seems to be a good chance that they may end up contradicting eachother. Ageofe 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is simply a list of all the different skateboarding tricks. There's tons of lists on Wikipedia. Someone please tell me how this is different from all the other lists? --Liface 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. We're discussing this one. i ^said 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I see it there is no problem with the content, with the rationale for deletion being that there are a lack of sources. Still, there is a diference between something being unsoured and being unsourceable. The nominator's statement that the article "may be improved if sources are come across" contradicts his statement that the article cannot be attributed to reliable sources. I would be very, very surprised if there are not any easily accessible reliable sources for this article. Calgary 05:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And yet all attempts to persuade the authors to cite said sources have been for naught. -- VegitaU 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response I don't mean to sound too critical here, but if sources are both confirmed to exist and are readily available, I don't think it's a good idea to nominate an article for deletion simply because no one has added them yet. The issue (attribution) seems to be a matter of verifiability as opposed to original research, and if we know for a fact that the information is verifiable, yet is missing citations, the best thing to do is to find some sources and cite them rather than nominate the article for deletion. It seems that your argument is based around the idea that if the article is kept, it is unlikely that the article's main contributors will attempt to attribute sources. That being said, deletion is not conditional. It's generally not a good idea to delete an article that can be easily be improved simply because no one else has improved it. In these situations I'd say the ideal thing to do would be to fix it yourself. As I have said before, the problem is not that the content cannot be verified, but simply that the article has not been verified. As such, I see no conflict with Wikipedia policy, and I don't see how the idea that the article's main contributors don't seem willing enough to improve the article is a rationale for deletion. Calgary 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete but if citations are added, then I fully support a keep but only if citations can be found.Balloonman 06:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Many sources can easily be found for them. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and alot more. All that is needed is to cite these sources. --_Hdt83 _Chat 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Innocent, sourcing problem will resolve itself over time, not too many tricks named. 75.184.84.89 13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with 75-184-84-89. Sourcing is not that big a deal on this one, which is a pretty well written article about the difficult maneuvers that thousands of people across the nation are mastering. Skateboarding is, arguably, the fastest growing sport in America, and this article is a good start on describing what we non-boarders don't know, yet. Mandsford 17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#HOWTO. If you want to learn how to skateboard, ask someone or take lessons. (Do you do that?) Don't come here, this is not the place. i ^said 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a how-to article. It simply explains what these tricks are. Believe me, there is a lot of technique involved in doing ANY skateboarding trick, and if I wanted to make a How-To Wikibook, I could go WAAAAAY in-depth. The lack of citations are simply a function of the article being immature and having so few editors on it. Probably 90% of the edits on this and all the other skateboarding articles are vandalism. Shreditor 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article contains information that is true. It explains what the tricks are.
Keep, the article may need sources, but this category of tricks is notable. --musicpvm 04:43, 18 August 2007 (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.