Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtreme Ice Skating (2nd nomination)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Ice Skating

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

Multiple problems not fixed since at least a year. Does not meet WP:GNG. There is clear WP:COI as the main contibutor is developing an "Xtreme Ice Skate: An ice-skate that is expected to replace hockey skates and figure skates as the main ice-skate used for the sport." Majority of accessible references fall under WP:SELFCITE. The article shows ignorance to language used in ice skating. Elements that could distinguish it from a cross between hockey and figure skating are not explained. People doing "Xtreme ice skating" appear to call it as "Freestyle ice skating" according to video sites which are the only evidence of some wider notability.

The article was previously deleted, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtreme Ice Skating Z-m-k (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no notability. Corn cheese (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 8th, 2013. In reply to (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013: Please be more specific about what you are claiming. I can not tell where you delineate each claim. Are you talking about technical language of the Xtreme Ice Skate? Or just the sport itself? Or both? Also, the difference between "Xtreme Ice Skating" and "Freestyle Ice Skating: will be explained (in a couple of days). The issues presented, can be resolved with further clarification from your end.

Also, user "Corn cheese," please see the following rule: "Notability is not temporary Shortcuts:

   WP:N#TEMP
   WP:NTEMP
   WP:NOTTEMPORARY

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."

- - Notability has already been established by a previous moderator at the time this article was approved.

While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Perceval (talk • contribs)

It is the responsibility of the editor to clearly demonstrate notability showing, significant coverage in multiple, reliable, 3rd party sources. This does not include official webpages, youtube, facebook, twitter, forums or other things that can be easily self-publshed. Additionally, while it is true that notability is not temporary, notability has to be established first! Ravendrop 01:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "sport" (I use that term generously) is clearly not notable. Essentially all references calling it "Xtreme Ice Skating" are self-published. The page is also clearly an advertisement for the "creator's" business/webpage and their (not yet available?) skates, not to mention a serious WP:COI issue. The claim of this "sport" being invented in 2005 is also laughable, as these types of jumps, spins, etc. have been around for many years (i.e. figure skating, but also acrobatic skating/extreme skating, which is often seen in ice shows) and the only thing unique i the name/business which the author is trying to promote. Finally, as it has only 14 participants, according to this page, it has hardly reached the level of participation to even start to remotely be considered notable. Ravendrop 01:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 9th, 2013. In response to "Ravendrop": NOTABILITY: (http://www.xtremeiceskating.com/press_kit.htm) The sport was mentioned in IFS (International Figure Skating Magazine) and ISKATE Magazine (U.K. magazine), at which time the moderator approved notability of the sport and allowed the Wikipedia article to remain. For further notability aside from the magazines, there is an instructor in Argentina, Mr. Lombardi, who is currently teaching Xtreme Ice Skating. He is also now part of a ice-show and will be performing in a few weeks. All video tutorials are still being created by the founder (U.S.) and are serving participants worldwide. Registrants (14 participants) is not the mark of a sport since those participants have asked to be on the website. All other participants do not necessarily want to be listed on the website, and their privacy is dually respected. Lastly, a sport is a sport whether big or extremely small. The problem is we are debating what a sport actually is when the claim for deletion is of another topic entirely ("Notability is not temporary").

SPORT & DISCIPLINE (jumps, spins, etc..): Most of the jumps, spins, and turns were created by the founder and converted into a discipline (an exact science and establishment of organization, guidelines, tutorials, policies, and regulations), along with diagrams such as this one (http://www.xtremeiceskating.com/online_documents/Eagle_Footwork_diagram.pdf). http://www.xtremeiceskating.com/learn.htm (discipline and diagrams). http://www.xtremeiceskating.com/testing_video_rules.htm (guidelines).

There is a Board of Directors (http://www.xtremeiceskating.com/board.htm) which decides rules and regulations of each trick. Board members are a community of Xtreme Ice Skaters. There is even minutes to meetings of the Board of Directors, such as this one (http://xtremeiceskating.com/minutes/Minutes_January_2012.pdf).

MODERATOR C.O.I.: "Revendrop" is suggesting that "Xtreme Ice Skating" is not a sport, by clearly the level of detail, organization, and planning of the sport is clearly notable as shown above (which is only some of the the sport). Using the terms "laughable" while makes for lenient conversation, is a clearly a conflict of interest of speech, especially when "Notability is not temporary" rule has already been established and the moderator(s) are trying to by moderators seeking to reverse a clearly established rule ("Notability is not temporary").

XTREME ICE SKATES: The Xtreme Ice Skate IS finished. They are sold by the company "Harlick," which is a very well established and worldwide known figure skating manufacturer. If you do not believe they are being sold, then call Harlick yourself and ask them if they make "Xtreme Ice Skates," and that you'd like to inquire about ordering a pair. Their number can be found on their website at www.harlick.com

Regarding comment "(i.e. figure skating, but also acrobatic skating/extreme skating, which is often seen in ice shows): An ice-show doesn't qualify a type of skating as a sport, nor does it qualify a type of skating as unique. A SPORT is organization and discipline, as well as following. All of those qualifications have been met.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Perceval (talk • contribs)

Reply Yes there are a few very brief mentions, but WP:NOTABILITY requires significant coverage which a sentence or two in the magazines does not cover, nor does a single newspaper article in a local paper, especially as they are talking about a style/kind of skating that they clearly do identify solely with Xtreme Ice Skating (the brand you are trying to promote), but rather term Freestyle Skating (the term that the rest of the skating community seems to have more commonly adopted to cover your brand and similar types of skating). If anything, if an article about this type of skating is to be created, it should be under that name. My point about using "sport" in quotations is that what you are promoting, appears to me, not as a distinct sport, but rather more akin to a league. (I.e. Ice Hockey is a sport; the NHL or the KHL, etc. are the organizations that create the rules in which their leagues operate in the sport). The fact that you have given unique names to jumps/tricks doesn't create a new sport.

Finally, I do not see any evidence that any moderator has ever endorsed the page as being notable. I am guessing you may be referring to the WP:AfC procedure (though I can find no evidence this page went through that process), but even if an article is created and accepted there, it does not mean that the topic is notable and cannot be subject to a deletion review. In fact, no one person, moderator or otherwise, can unilaterally decide if any topic is notable enough. Wikipedia works to gain a community consensus and note that consensus, even on the notability of a topic, can change. In fact, the history of this page is deletion at a previous AfD and a subsequent deletion review which upheld and confirmed the deletion of the article. Note also that articles (other than those that go through the AfC process) are not reviewed before they are publicly posted, and therefore that an article has been up for any period of time does not confer notability either. You're reliance on Notability is not temporary is misguided. Myself and the nominator are arguing that Xtreme Ice Skating has never been notable, not that its notability has somehow expired. (See also Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability) Ravendrop 04:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage to meet wikipedia's inclusion guildelines. -- Whpq (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, first of all Dan, can you start signing your replies? I stand by my original claim to delete (I started the procedure). As for WP:GNG: lack of significant coverage, little reliability, sources do not provide deep coverage. In fact your "sport" is mentioned only in passing and based on your "updates." The source that provides the most coverage (ISKATE, July 2009, one-column) even admits that your tricks can be decomposed into basic figure skating moves and the flashy name is meant to attract people who would not "figure" skate on principle. WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE are clear of the 32 references, at least 26 are going to your website or YouTube channel. As for ignorance for the language used in ice skating, the tricks that you mention in the article are sequences of basic figure skating moves. The fact that you perform them on hockey skates does not warrant new names. Moreover, these are (again) usually sequences. If every sequence in figure skating had it's unique name we could write a whole specialized wiki. I will admit that some short sequences in figure skating do have widely known names but this is due to them being included in tests or because it is used in training a lot (8 Step Mohawk, Roll step, Walley step). For instance, you provided a link in this discussion to a "Eagle Footwork" in which: Eagle turn is a Mohawk turn or a small inside Spread eagle (figure skating) (small in the sense that it is not possible to maintain it for longer glides) depending on a skater's timing, Reverse Apolo Turn looks like a Mohawk turn with a hop, Moving Spin is a Mohawk turn+3 turn sequence, and T-Turn is Mohawk turn+Choctaw turn+cross step. I this article could be rewritten to talk about "Freestyle skating" (it would be a very unfortunate name, in my opinion, since it is also used in figure skating) is a also not clear to me since there is still no notability according to WP:GNG. The best one can do is to make a sub-section in Figure skating and/or Ice hockey, but it is not a discipline of it own, not yet.Z-m-k (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a matter that needs to be cleared up: the original document that was deleted was *not* the same document as the one now being debated. It was completely different. The original document was an incomplete document, and could have been written with better context, and I believe that document was submitted accidentally before it was completely written. Obviously the document was deleted for reasons just stated. However, this does and should not establish precedent for deletion a second time. What is being debated is notability, not that that first document was deleted because it was improperly written and therefore that's "an even more reason to delete this revision." I wanted to make this point clear. --Dan Perceval (talk) 15:04, 12 July 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.