Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game of "S.K.A.T.E."

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 – the term/game appears notable, but this article needs cleanup and wikifying. Specifically, the 'how-to' part must be rewritten or removed per WP:NOT#HOWTO, and the third-person tone ('you need', 'you can', etc.) must change. KrakatoaKatie 02:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Game of "S.K.A.T.E."

Game of "S.K.A.T.E." (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

WP is not a game guide, electronic or otherwise. No evidence of this game's notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Maybe the article doesn't yet show enough of what's expected for notability, but every kid who skateboards knows the game of SKATE-- just as every kid who has ever picked up a basketball knows the routing for the game of "HORSE", where you have to duplicate the other person's move or have a strike against you. Look at how many google results you can get from "game of SKATE". All it needs is a little more sourcing to make it a viable article, and that's easily located. Mandsford (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with the SKATE name being more notable than HORSE (although they are the same idea, just different name) since SKATE is pretty much only known among those interested in skateboarding while HORSE is pretty mainstream. IF the content is kept, it should be moved to HORSE (or something similar) and explain the general concept. TJ Spyke 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Because of the ambiguity of the search phrase, Google results would be, at best, irrelevant.--WaltCip (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know-- every single one of those results that I clicked on seems to refer to the subject. Of course, if you can find one that doesn't, we're all receptive to hearing about it, but it doesn't look ambiguous to me. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge: Provide some citations and merge essential info with the Skateboarding article as an alternative to deletion. It certainly does not have greater notability than "HORSE" and "HORSE" does not have its own article either (nor does it seem to merit one). A few sentences in a section of Skateboarding should suffice it seems. An in-depth "how-to" is not what Wikipedia is for. Fightindaman (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: The game is notable enough. The article needs "wikifying" and serious copyediting for grammer. Other than that, I see no problem with it. -GrahamDo (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: It's not just grammar, but significance. In what way is there a larger context affected by this game? In what way has the game demonstrated effects within its own sport? A dictionary definition at Wiktionary is sufficient, as, without contexts and history and effects, it's not an encyclopedic topic. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  No less encyclopedic than articles like Variations of basketball or Hopscotch. Kids' games are as much a part of culture as TV shows, movies and books. Mandsford (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  Doesn't mean this should, part of culture!encyclopedic notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep seems to be a very well known game in its community, and plenty of sources seem to exist (from article and above discussion). Hobit (talk) 03:22, 5 March 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.