Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen-60

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. Sr 13 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen-60

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable skateboarding maneuver. John254 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in a skate park one day. BassoProfundo 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and has no refrences. Oyster guitarist 06:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on! - this article was AFD'd within minutes of its creation, probably by someone on New Page Patrol. While it looks like it should be deleted, I say give it a little while and see if it gets expanded. If it doesn't, then delete. Guroadrunner 09:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to agree with Guroadrunner. Lets just keep this article for the time being and see whether it can be improved further. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the history, this article is the editor's first contribution. Per WP:AGF and WP:BITE, it would do no harm to conditionally keep this one for now and see where it goes. EyeSerene^TALK 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now, anyway, per above comments - I concur. A bit of coaching of the author might be in order. —Travis ^talk 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (I know, a complete reversal) John254 has raised some very valid points, some of which I was ignoring, probably due to my inexperience with the AFD process. I'll try to look "at the big picture" from now on. —Travis ^talk 14:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Essentially unverifiable articles concerning neologisms which only have meaning to a few people cause grave harm to Wikipedia by reducing the overall quality of the article set. The harm caused by one such article may be minimal; however, a profusion of unverifiable neologisms causes significant aggregate harm. Delaying the AFD nomination for this article would delay its deletion, thereby reducing Wikipedia's quality. It does not appear to be argued that this article has serious encyclopedic value, but rather that, in consideration of not scaring away new users, we must retain an unencyclopedic article. However, might we not scare away new users by not immediately informing them that their first article is unacceptable, instead forbearing any criticism until the user, having worked for a month on writing many such unacceptable articles, has all of their work nominated for deletion in one fell swoop? Merely informing the author of an article concerning an unverifiable neologism of the need to supply multiple third party, reliable sources to meet the requirements of our verifiability policy and notability guideline seems ludicrously inadequate, as the author may simply persist in the creation of more articles that violate our standards, believing there to be no serious consequences. The author may well continue to generate unacceptable articles in good faith, seriously believing that they improve Wikipedia -- that a user is knowingly acting contrary to Wikipedia's fundamental policies doesn't mean they are deliberately trying to cause damage. If an article were problematic merely because of a lack of references, but concerned what appeared to be a notable subject, it might well be advisable to delay an AFD nomination. However, in the case of Glen-60, an article which concerns an obviously unverifiable and extraordinarily uncommon neologism, an immediate AFD nomination, though necessarily harsh, is also the most honest approach in informing the author that content of this nature is unacceptable on Wikipedia. John254 03:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have used a prod. this gives some time in case in fact it is sourceable, while letting the ed. know very clearly what is necessary to be done, & a sincere new ed. who cant find material usually let's the article be deleted, thus saving us all this trouble.

I don't think the limited interest of the subject is the least relevant unless it is so limited there are no sources. DGG (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I still stand by my comment above - "do no harm" should apply to editors as well as articles, and I honestly don't believe it does any harm to WP as a whole to give an editor - especially a new editor - a chance to improve their work (where said work is not an outright violation of things that could get WP into trouble like WP:BIO or copyright rules). However, it's been a few days now, the article creator has made no other contributions to WP under that username, and the article shows no sign of being improved... so let's get rid of this unarguably poor article ;) EyeSerene^TALK 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 15:21, 19 July 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.