Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monoboarding

: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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Monoboarding]]=

:{{la|Monoboarding}} ([{{fullurl:Monoboarding|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monoboarding}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Only source is fan-based site that does not indicate notability; no independent, verifiable sources. Violates WP:SPAM; WP:N; WP:V; WP:MADEUP mhking (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

:{{la|Monoboard (snow sport)}}

Comment - Also adding Monoboard (snow sport) to AfD due to identical content and identical reasons for deletion. --mhking (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

:Strong Keep, a wealth of good sources exist, and the article could be easily improved, and I don't think comes close to a candidate for deletion. google search shows a wealth of articles in high-profile publications, including some written in Powder Mag. Articles and videos covering monoboard, monoboarding. This is above and beyond what is required to establish notability: detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources, found with very little effort.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.91.66 (talk) date— 71.160.91.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppet vote indented and struck Cheers, I'mperator 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:*Very strong Keep The article passes WIKI SPORT standards. Whether this sport is practice by millions or only by few is a new sport and developing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.81.242 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)— 71.106.81.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppet vote indented and struck Cheers, I'mperator 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The World Monoboard Organization is an independent, verifiable sources reconizied in 7 countries in the World USA, France, Switzerland, Italy, United KIngdom, Australia, and Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.81.242 (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)— 71.106.81.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Keep Keep The original page *monoboard was created in 2004 and accepted by WIKI, then vandalized many times and then change over to a page about to computer monoboard. This page *monoboard snow should be call *monoboard, monoboarding and the current *monoboard page should be call *Computer monoboard

See the history below Thanks

2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monoboard&oldid=180297545

2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monoboard&oldid=100928213

2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monoboard&oldid=36736447

2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monoboard&oldid=270467802

2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monoboard&oldid=35767902 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.200.243 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Monoboard (snow sport), Redirect Monoboarding to Monoboard (snow sport) - the winter sport is known to some winter sports enthusiasts. The very advert-like content at the moment is clearly unsuitable, but I don't see a problem in getting rid of that in favour of a better article if you give me a chance to do so. As for the original Monoboard article, it should never have been "usurped" by the current stuff about circuit boards, but it has now (twice!) and someone is pretty keen on the circuit board stuff. The way this kind of thing should have been dealt with is by the creation of a disambig page, which is exactly what I'm going to do right now. Astronaut (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

::I've created a disambig page at Monoboard which will hopefully stop further arguments there.

::As for the referenceing in Monoboard (snow sport), I have looked but what links exists probably I fear qualify as reliable sources - they are either enthusiast's sites, or the sites of companies with products to sell. There is however a Monoboard article in French which has been around for quite some time. Astronaut (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monoboarding||}}

  • Comment:What about Monoski, Monoskiing? I think that this discussion should consider those pages as possible redirect or merge targets, or for comparison. They're just as poorly sourced, but they are not as messy or promotional.Synchronism (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:*Question: Is monoskiing and monoboarding really the same? If so then there is a serious disagreement between the articles about who invented the sport and when. This just shows why verifiability matters and all four articles fail to make the grade. The only RS reference for monoskiing is as a paralympic sport with a seat fitted to the ski, this doesn't do anything to demonstrate notability for it as a non-paralympic sport. If monoboarding and monoskiing really are the same thing then I have no objection to the monoboarding articles being redirected to the monoskiing ones. I don't think anything is worth merging though. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:::I don't think there is much more than a minor semantic difference. I can believe that snowboard technology is being used for monoskiing, but I doubt that there is much of a technique difference, save maybe the uses of poles. It seems to me to simply be a stylistic difference.Synchronism (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • If monoboarding is the same as monoskiing then redirect to that, if not then delete both. No proof that this is a notable sport under this name. No RS references. The articles seem to focus on a small clique of people who are both the board makers and practitioners of the sport. The WMO is probably also the same people. It doesn't look like any sort of official sporting body. If this sport receives wider acceptance and recognition in the future then maybe it can have an article then but not based on what we have now. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all: Shorn of all the sockpuppets and SPAs, I neither see nor find any evidence of notability, reliable sources or anything else along those lines. That the promoters of these "sports" have worked their club into a few websites (23 total Google hits, which isn't working at all hard at it) doesn't translate into any recognition or notice by the media (zero Google News hits).  RGTraynor  07:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources and promotional tone.Synchronism (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2009 (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.