Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock climbing
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 speedy keep. MaxSem 13:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rock climbing
Everything but "history" section violates WP:NOR. Cut out the original research and we're left with a stub. Chardish 08:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong speedy keep a very notable past time, well deserving of an article. Where do we get the idea that we have to cut any text that isn't referenced? Instead we should seek to find references. It's obviously been edited by experts in the field, we just have to coach them into providing reliable sources for their expertise. --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- See Section 1 of core negotiable-only-at-the-Foundation-level policy WP:V (and the nutshell summary at the top) Bwithh 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I made my point badly. This article was tagged by Chardish with a request for refs and verifiability, and then four minutes later nominated for deletion! --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- See Section 1 of core negotiable-only-at-the-Foundation-level policy WP:V (and the nutshell summary at the top) Bwithh 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It certainly needs an article, but frankly, this isn't it. WP:NOR is non-negotiable. No sources = no verifiability = no article. - Chardish 09:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- But the history section is fine, (as according to your own nomination even). It's not a stub. Even if it was just a sourced stub, that's not grounds for deletion. Bwithh 09:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- It certainly needs an article, but frankly, this isn't it. WP:NOR is non-negotiable. No sources = no verifiability = no article. - Chardish 09:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep History section is sufficient to take it beyond a stub. Article needs more comprehensive referencing and long-existing unsourced statements can be removed, certainly, but the basic subject matter itself surely isn't being contested? Bwithh 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - (edit conflict) This is certainly a subject that merits an article, even if the article needs improvement. Most of the material that you say is "original research" is not - it is just unreferenced at the moment. If anyone gets to their copy of Mountaineering:Freedom of the Hills (ISBN 0898864275) before I do, they could fix that pretty fast. FreplySpang 09:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep you already claim that verifiable information exists in other parts of the article. Remove the original research yourself or add {{fact}} tags, don't bring the article to AfD.--RWR8189 09:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, this article needs some work and more referencing, but deletion is not the answer. Serpent's Choice 09:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Only in the most extreme cases is deletion a solution for problems with an article on such a notable topic. The verifiability pendulum will have swung too far if we equate lack of sources with unverifiability and start deleting valid and verifiable articles just because sources have not yet been added. We should not start using AFD as a cleanup tool instead of a deletion tool. Some basic research with Google to check if this is truly unverifiable is virtually mandatory before declaring something "unverifiable". Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not the place to 'edit' the article! I suggest the nomiminator takes this up on the article's talk-page. Markb 09:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, looks like a valid article to me. JIP | Talk 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Sections need sources, yes, but the history section has them and the clubs link to articles that I think largely have them. AfD is not the answer, particularly for a key 'portal' like article linking to other articles on aspects of climbing. It is not OR as any climber would know. It just needs sources. If this kind of AfD was common, it would kill Wilipedia. --Bduke 12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per WP:SNOWBALL. The article needs a lot of work but AfD is not the place to bring this to light. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per everybody above except nominator! Stephenb (Talk) 13:39, 9 January 2007 (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.
