Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drama Riding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Although a number of comments support merging the article, they all come with some serious caveats that do not appear to have been overcome. --jonny-mt 13:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drama Riding

Drama Riding (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable neologism. Google hits were all related to this article. Prod removed without explanation. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Article created by a very new editor. Please be patient. --Una Smith (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - this article isn't badly written, but it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I suggest looking for another wiki where the editor can take their contributions. Terraxos (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've googled the terms "George Morris" "Drama Riding" and there was not one hit. Although not every source need to be from the internet, it does appear that this is such a new word that nobody knows about it yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until it gains some recognition as a term then the article is deceptive. -- BpEps - t@lk 04:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is more about a behavior than a new name for that behavior. See Talk:Drama Riding. --Una Smith (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google turns up nothing. If relevant, verifiable content turns up, merge to hunt seat as proposed in article. —BradV 04:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - should be merged with hunt seat, IF verifiable references can be found. Dana boomer (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
--Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: The editor who created the article has tagged it {{merge}}. --Una Smith (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it was tagged with merge before it was brought to AfD ([1]). The edit you are referring to is probably where the AfD notice was removed from the page. —BradV 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I checked diffs and Bradv15 is correct. --Una Smith (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Question: if the merge tag preceded the AfD tag, does the merge take precedence? Or do we continue here? --AeronM (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Precedence is relatively unimportant on Wikipedia; consensus is very important. Consensus means we discuss until we all agree, with civility and without driving anyone away. --Una Smith (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a real type of riding seen a the top horse shows today. It's been a problem for many years. Even George Morris, one of the greatest horsemen, has spoken against this type of riding. with me and in writing. I even have an article about him talking about proper form over fences. It's on the January 7th 2005 issue on the Chronicle of the Horse magazine on page 8 and 9. I have pictures I have personally taken myself at a top horse show to prove this riding is dangerous and I also have pictures of what correct riding form looks like, even on a back cracking hunter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiona22 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The best argument for keeping is to edit the article to meet Wikipedia criteria. Can we do that? --Una Smith (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with either Hunt Seat or George Morris (if established by refs he is originator of term) until such time as the term has become more mainstream.... at that point it can always be split off into its own page. --AeronM (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete This is an article about a current fad within a particular riding discipline, really needs to be in an article about the discipline, not all by itself. Many, many dangerous riding practices out there, this is just one of many, ephemeral fad. Montanabw(talk) 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment If the article is unsourced original research, then we would be merging unsourced original research into an otherwise good article. That can't be the right answer. As for the article being new, OR is OR no matter how old it is. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the originator has provided refs which show that the phrase is indeed used and by whom (George Morris), so the issue would appear (to me) to be: does the article merit its own page? IMHO, i think that even if the page is fully fleshed out and perfectly referrenced, it is still more a merge item than a stand-alone item, at least at this point. --AeronM (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Dittos. (OMG, I am agreeing with Aeron again! LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 03:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OMG, are you feeling unwell?? (!) --AeronM (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (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.