Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowboarders v. Skiiers Conflict

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. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowboarders v. Skiiers Conflict[edit]

This is non-notable and unverifiable. Also, this article is just ridiculous. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A1 (no context). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems interesting enough. Would like to see it improved. Has potential. Recommend Keep. Navou ^talk 04:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that "this article is interesting" is not much of an argument to keep it on WP.--Dmz5 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting article that IS sourced, see the references section. Overall, a keeper indeed! Systemex 04:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs work, but the issue is certainly real. - Justin (Authalic) 05:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article should probably be renamed "Snowboarders v. Skiers Conflict" if it survives this AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - totally written from a snowboarder's pov as well. The reason skiiers hate them is because they park themselves in the middle of the slop of their ass with their boards in from of them. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete So badly written and formatted. Has a POV.--M8v2 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV OR mini-essay. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IslaySolomon. FiggyBee 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV, OR, and based on a single article that's actually about a conflict between snowmobiles and skiers --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 06:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Seems interesting enough" is not a criterion for inclusion. This article is original research, biased (the skiiers represent the traditional mode of alpine recreation, the snowboarders are comprised mostly of a unorthodox, avant-garde coterie... sez who?), and the only potentially reliable source included in the article has next to nothing to do with the topic at hand, as mentioned by Steve above. Not the basis for an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not an encylopedia article; it's an essay. If there were some relevant sources to demonstrate that this is an observed and noteworthy phenomenon, it might work, but it does not now. Heimstern Läufer 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article can be fixed. Sure, it needs to comply with WP:NPOV and less original research, but it can be made into a sufficient article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how this could become an encyclopedic topic. — QuantumEleven 07:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - potentially encyclopaedic. Poor writing is not a criterion for deletion. See also [1]: "Snowboarders, for their part, felt that skiers were unwilling to share the slopes with them and complained about the negative attitudes of some skiers. Globally, some ski areas reacted by banning snowboarding from their slopes and sadly, even now a few resorts still do." --Stemonitis 10:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steve. Inherently unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing encyclopedic here. If there is to be an article describing the history of interaction between skiers and snowboarders, it damn sure shouldn't have "conflict" in the title. Deizio talk 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CLEANUP is not a keep rationale. WP:RS requires multiple sources. Fails WP:V as this cannot be confirmed as anything but perhaps a local phenonomena. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong delete - why wasn't this speedied? - farcical nonsense. The very idea that a painfully POV essay like this could ever be cleaned up is just ludicrous. Moreschi 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay that is an opinion piece based on assumptions and stereotypes, no sources, no verification. Agent 86 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a real, widely-known phenomenon, but this is just an essay without a single sentence that belongs here. If someone wants the find some sources and write a proper article, I would have no objection to that. The only source in the article is about the antipathy between cross-country skiers and snowmobiles. JChap2007 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the big three: WP:V, WP:OR and WP:POV. -- Satori Son 05:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV original research with no encyclopedic value and no hopes of ever being cleaned up enough to come remotely close to being able to be a legitimate article. --The Way 06:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would be a keep because it has a source, but the source is a fail-source because it requires a log-in to view, so delete. Anomo 12:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Would keep without the OR. Can't though. Just H 20:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's POV, OR and the source is about a different phenomenon. Snowboard and snowmobile isn't the same thing. Secateur 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just stumbled upon this in doing research on Snowboarding and I have to say that this phenomenon is real and verifiable. Great start!! Titlalin 02:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense (albeit amusing). --Quuxplusone 02:04, 24 December 2006 (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.