Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spotting (climbing)

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotting (climbing)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, along with the one on Spotting (weight training), is basically an unreferenced extended dictionary definition, and not a subject with enough material for an independent encyclopedia article. KDS4444^Talk 21:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it may be a bit too much of a how-to guide and in need of improvement but the topic is a valid one for an encyclopedia. References could easily be added. The article is not currently a dictionary definition as it is clearly about the technique of spotting and not the word 'spotting' in this context. JMiall ₰ 22:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as "spotting" is a physical activity in which one person "does" the activity and another person "spots" them to make sure they don't fall or hurt themselves, do you think it would be a good idea to merge the two articles mentioned here (neither of which has any references) along with a redirect from other potential "spotting" articles such as "Spotting (gymnastics)", etc.? Each context is different, but they all derive from the same fundamental concept and it doesn't seem useful to have several articles on the same spotting idea. And I would still like to see a reference or two for any of it. I am very familiar with the concept of spotting with regard to weight training, but am concerned it is like "walking" or "catching" or "yelling" or "hefting" or "sneezing" or "typing" or "snoozing" in that these are just basic human "things" that don't seem to rise to the level of an encyclopedia. But I am totally open to being convinced otherwise! Thoughts?? KDS4444^Talk 18:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a dictionary definition, as opposed to the separate encyclopedia articles that we have now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The common idea between the 2 articles is that people 'spotting' are trying to spot something potentially dangerous but the situation they do this in and the the action they then take are quite different, different enough in my opinion to justify to separate articles. If you think the articles should be merged then this isn't really the place to discuss it though. Some of the xxxx-ing articles that you mention do have wikipedia articles, although not necessarily under exactly the same title. I'm tempted to start writing an article on catching - a very encyclopaedic topic that we don't seem to have a good article on. JMiall ₰ 12:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have articles about catching in particular contexts. For example Catch (baseball) and Caught have very similar contexts, but that small difference is enough to make it valid for us to have separate articles. I would very much welcome the supplementation of such articles by a general article on catching, about there must be loads of potential encyclopedic content, such as the physiological and neurological processes that lead humans to be able to perform such a complex act of coordination. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles on spotting in the context of bouldering at Rock and Ice magazine, the Bouldering Book (a blog by a recognized authority), ABC of rock climbing, and Stonemonkey (not sure if this is reliable, but it looks like reasonable info). A search on Google books shows many books that discuss spotting: Bouldering with Bobbi Bensman, Better Bouldering, Girl on the Rocks, etc.. There look to be multiple in-depth reliable sources for this topic, making it notable. The article definitely needs sources and a bit less of a howto style, but these are surmountable editing problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above. It seems that this keeps getting relisted because of the low number of bolded opinions, rather than on the basis of the discussion that has a clear policy-based consensus to keep, so there's my bolded opinion. Given the number of such relistings I think we should have a discussion about deprecating WP:NOTAVOTE, because it clearly isn't being followed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added one reference [1]. Article can be improved, but this is definitely a notable topic. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:11, 7 October 2013 (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.