Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of rowing terms

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. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of rowing terms

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Almost all of this is unsourced, and thus WP:OR. It's been tagged for needing additional citations for seven years; if nobody's undertaken to find sources yet, I don't expect anybody ever will.

What got me going on this is the statement, " It is common to use Roman numerals, especially when referring to a VIII", which I don't believe is true. But, with no citation, no way to tell.

I suspect I will get beaten up over this nomination. On the one hand, WP:NOTCLEANUP is valid, but that's not a free pass to avoid complying with WP:V indefinitely. I suppose this could be trimmed back to just the (very few) entries which do have sources, but you'd be left with something that's almost useless. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly going nowhere, so I'll withdraw the nomination to save time. But, an essential tenet of the encyclopedia is that we only publish WP:V material. Articles like this are some mix of official terms, jargon, and just plain slang, with no indication of which is which. The fact that this has been around for a long time and is read often isn't an excuse for keeping it, it's a reason why it's that much more important that it be verifiably correct. I've marked a few of the more slang-ish terms with "citation needed" templates. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I could immediately verify the very example alleged to be dubious. I easily found multiple book examples of "rowing VIII",[1][2][3] "Oxford VIII",[4][5][6] and "Cambridge VIII",[7][8][9] but very little in the way of "rowing 8", "Oxford 8", or "Cambridge 8". Unsourced is not synonymous with unreferenced, a common misconception, and no other rationale is offered for deletion. SpinningSpark 22:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:V states that only "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations". See also WP:BLUESKY. WP:OR refers to truly original thought, not straightforward stuff like the meaning of rudder, seat and stern. And note that this page has existed for over ten years and has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. What makes such articles acceptable is not some pro forma citations – that's just busywork – but Linus's Law. If there had been significant issues or errors, they would have been picked up years ago. Long-established pages should be protected from such facile drive-by nominations. Andrew D. (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baseless nomination. This is an important article that gets several hundred views a day. Any substantial problems would have long been rectified. Schwede 66 18:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination is inappropriate. This article meets all content guidelines. -- Dane ^talk 02:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if things need sources, add sources, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list does not need to be entirely sourced, if there are links to well-sourced articles, as is this case. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll have to agree with the other users who voted keep, it is enough if the articles linked are well sourced, there is not a compelling enough reason to delete this article. Garlicolive (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2019 (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.