Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skishing

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. NW (Talk) 02:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skishing

edit
Skishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fad Geronimo20 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't heard of skishing, but I have heard of Forbes Magazine. Notable enough for me. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when has any little momentary attention-grabbing quirk that Forbes allows been justification for creating a Wikipedia article? I can't see any signs on the web that this activity is enduring or any signs that it was anything other than a fleeting oddity, promoted by some self publicist. It is a piece of silliness, momentarily funny if you like, a stunt, but not a realistic fishing technique. It will have no enduring presence on the web unless Wikipedia makes it so. --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THere's a link above to Google news. Feel free to add additional sources from the many available going back to 1950. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks like I need to address the notability criteria in detail:
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Apart from coverage on a number of web sites none of which are likely to be considered reliable sources, the piece in Forbes Life appears to be the sole source. That hardly constitutes significant coverage.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
Apart from one article in Forbes Life (which may or may not be considered a reliable source - I have no opinion) none of the other offered references could be claimed to be reliable. It is noted however, that the article does not appear to be from the main editorial pages of Forbes, so I would have severe doubts whether it would in fact pass a reliability test.
  • "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
Nothing has been offered in support of this criteria. The Forbes life article is a first hand account of an experience by the author with Paul Melnyk, the so called inventor of "skishing".
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
The Forbes Life piece is not exactly independent, it reads more like a piece of fandom. No critical analysis is included and very little that could be considered to beeditorial comment, it reads just like the sort of piece one would expect to be included in a lifestyle liftout which, I suppose, is what it is.
  • "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.
One article no matter what its source can hardly be considered to be substabntive coverage.
Overall, IMO a massive fail for notablilty. - Nick Thorne talk 05:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only a handful of mentions in Google News leads me to conclude that this isn't even popular enough to be described as a fad. Since this Wiki article for "Skishing" says the fad was invented in 1995, clearly the portmanteau "skishing" used in the Google News article from 1950 - 45 years before it's invention - is describing some other activity. TruthGal (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are loads of realiable sources discussing this very notable adn long established type of fishing. Here are google book returns [1] and here is Google News[2]. There are many entire articles about the subject. POV pushing editors who don't like the sport are trying to have it deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked your links: of the 15 books listed, 7 contain references to this activity, 7 contain references to a sound (ie using terms such as "it made a skishing sound") and one is indeterminate because the contents of the document are hidden; of the 8 Google news entries 2 are reviews of one of the books from the other list, one is a newspaper item from 1950 from which it is impossible to tell whether it is about the same activity (which as has been pointed out was invented only recently according to the skishing article itself), one is an advertisment from 1884 (who knows what that is referring to), leaving four references. This is hardly a picture of "significant coverage". Finally, you need to remember to assume good faith, calling other editors "POV pushing editors" is hardly going to help your cause. - Nick Thorne talk 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many articles about this subject and chapters in books does it take? Seems to be a slam dunk. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm yeah, crazy I know. But the nominator is not only trying to delete the article, but he's been removing it from the fishing cateogry, adding it to the humor category, and trying to malign the sport by vanadlising the text. I don't have a dog in the fight, but it's obviously a notable subject. At worst it could be merged, but with entire articles on it and chapters of books it's clear that it's independently notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely out of order CoM with your constant charges of "vandalism" in your edit summaries, as well as above. Keep a civil tongue. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only article I see that's reliable is the Forbes article; anything else is a book, and I'm not sure that this would establish notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNonnotable neologism and dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a mirror of Forbes, . Edison (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To NW, it is apparent that CoM is never going to agree with deletion. He is the only one making any attempt to put up non-trivial arguments in favour of the article. Unfortunately for him, these arguments simply do not hold water. He then proceeds to make ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him. So why are we having this on-going dicussion? Consensus is not the object here. Remember Wikipedia is not a democracy, votes are not important in these discussions, weight of argument is. Please just cut to the chase and delete this piece of frippery now. - Nick Thorne talk 02:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the the Best Life and Forbes articles already cited, there's also coverage in Aug. 31, 2003 Field and Stream, Jackson Hole Daily, Montauk Star, Publisher's Weekly, Booklist, and the Daily Record. Why aren't those considered reliable sources? And there is also coverage in the books cited in the article (including an entire chapter in one of them) and more on Google Books. Please explain how these sources, including the Forbes article entirely about this subject, are insufficient to establish notability for a stand alone article, or at the very least a merge to surf casting. I haven't added more cites because there is enough coverage there already and it's not a subject of great interest to me. It's also difficult to work on the article because of Geronimo's vandalism. Do you think it's appropriate to remove it from the fishing category and add it to the humor category? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are good enough for me. At least, they're comparable to the kinds of sources that are normally deemed acceptable for establishing notability. Zagalejo^^^ 02:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • tentative keep. The article currently has a couple of apparently valid book links. The second magazine link is very marginal (an entry in a side bar is really of no consequence), but I'd be interested in Nick Thorne's position on the books. As a fottnote to some of the above discussion, if it was invented by this guy in the 90s, obviously the pre-1990s articles aren't referring to it, so I don't think Child of Midnight's reference to articles going back to the 50s makes sense in the current discussion. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will give my views on the books as requested, I will omit books referring to things other than this activity including anything earlier than 1995 which together make up more than half the entries on the proffered list:
  • 100 Weird ways to catch fish by John Waldman contains a review of a chapter in On the run about the activity. Thus it cannot stand alone without reference to that book.
  • On the Run: An Angler's Journey Down the Striper Coast By David Dibenedetto an editor at Field & Stream magazine. No preview available online, so unable to judge the depth and quality of the reference.
  • The Ultimate Guide to Striped Bass Fishing: Where to Find Them, How to Catch ... By Eric Burnley. No online preview, unable to judge extent or quality of related content.
  • Knack Fishing for Everyone: A Complete Illustrated Guide By Scott Bowen, David E. Dirks. No online preview, unable to judge extent or quality of related content, however given that this book shows how to tie the essential knots; select the right lures, lines, and tackle; identify fish; and make effective casts any coverage is likely to be minor.
And that folks is all that Google Books returns from the offered link. The other entries are about something else. The first two on this list are really only one, but still, even if we allow that there are 4 books with some sort of reference about the activity (and even if we allow that their coverage is non-trivial, which has not been demonstrated), that cannot be describes as significant coverage as defined in the notability criteria. Also, that does not even begin to look at the issue of whether any of these books would meet the criteria for reliable sources, something I would seriously doubt they would achieve. In any case, something that has been around for nearly 15 years and which returns only a small handfull of returns in Google is hardly likely to be the next big thing, is it? - Nick Thorne talk 05:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before you can say that you need to show that the sources are reliable. Additionally, there is the issue of notability. Sources can be fixed (if available, but there seems precious few) but this subject is simply not notable. - Nick Thorne talk 05:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk. What "reliable sources" did I remove? Name one. You didn't exercise due diligence did you? You didn't actually examine the situation before you accepted ChildofMidnight's abusive posturings at face value. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I don't give two hoots either way, but if you cared to look through the page history you would see that Geronimo has not removed any reliable sources at all. It would be appreciated if you withdrew the accusation. ninety:one 14:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my above comment to him about the reliable primary sources that he removed. I'll happily recant my statement and change my vote if someone can show me a guideline/policy that actively refutes my assertation, though. I just can't find a policy justification to disqualify his sources, and it seems a little WP:POINTY for Geronimo to have removed sources and proper categorizations from the article to fit his specific POV on the subject. But like I said, show me a policy/guideline that refutes what I'm saying, and I'll happily admit that I'm wrong. --Lithorien (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, don't refactor the discussion because unless one checks the timestamps, it appears that I made my comment after you made yours, which is not the case. Secondly, the forum is not a reliabe source (WP:SPS. Thirdly, Geronimo never removed the Forbes reference - unless you can find me diff? ninety:one 15:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erp, sorry about refactoring the discussion. Didn't even occur to me that I was - I fixed the ordering. Secondly, thank you for pointing out WP:SPS... that does mean the forum isn't a reliable source. And third, nice catch. The diff I was thinking of was this[3], but I see where Geronimo edited the Forbes reference to. So I'd just like to apoligize to him publicly, for that false accusation. --Lithorien (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that [4] could be considered a reliable primary source, which was removed, and as another primary source, [5] is. While I agree with the statements being made that the article needs more reliable secondary and tetriary sources, I'm not going to shout for deleting it because some editors believe that the primary sources offered up aren't reliable. Neither of them smack of WP:OR, so I don't see where they need to be pulled and disqualified, and yet you removed them repeatedly from the article. --Lithorien (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second on of those links is to a discussion forum. Forums are not reliable sources. Secondly you seem to be ignoring the notability criteria. As I said above, for an activity that has supposedly been going on for about 15 years, the handful of references to it that have been produced do not reflect something that has received significant coverage. Have a look at my comments above about the criteria and how they apply to this article. No one has shown any evidence that the article meets these criteria, whether the few sources that have been provided are valid or not. - Nick Thorne talk 21:43, 28 August 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skishing&oldid=1070236833"