Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross-blocking

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 of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-blocking

Not updated in two years.. insufficient context - nobody seems to care about it anyway - we can do without this article Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 11:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep [1] gets 150,000 ghits. There was enough context for me to know what it was talking about, but it could use cleanup. kotepho 12:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Cleanup by whom? Somebody who cares about the article? How about every single person who has edited the article in the past eighteen months - nobody. Should be cleaned up before AfD debate closes. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — most Google hits are unrelated; [2] topic is already described in slalom skiing. Feezo (Talk) 13:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, sufficient context, and I cleaned it up a little. Delete as per Feezo, not original nom. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 13:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Delete an article for being excessively stable? That's pretty silly. Monicasdude 13:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep Are we supposed to delete any article not updated in two years? I disagree with that Roodog2k 14:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, only Feezo's vote saves this from a speedy keep due to bad nomination (e.g. no real reason given for deletion). Turnstep 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 16:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What is the difference between this and say Category:Tennis_shots or Category:American football plays? Aren't all these sports techniques equally valuable? Not to mention that the references are impeccable and the nom has not given any valid reason for removal -- JJay 17:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe the article says everything that needs to be known on the matter? Its not badly written, and providesexternal links. ImpuMozhi 19:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable sporting technique, per JJay. I added a stub tag (wintersport-stub) and changed the link to "slalom skiing" (over "slalom", because the slalom skiing article is much larger and this seems to be basically about skiing). Also changed "racer" to "ski-racer" for contextualization purposes. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable sport technique. Nigelthefish 16:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No-one editting the article shouldn't be a reason to delete it. RicDod 20:24, 20 March 2006 (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.