Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juggling notation

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juggling notation (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)

Full of completely unorganised and unsourced drivelly original research, no references, little notability, etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 13:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, as a juggling expert, you should identify precisely the instances of OR ... but I guess then you could just as well fix them. I don't understand the rationale for this AFD. The thing exists, and there is a detailed article on Cambridge notation. If all alternative notations mentioned under Juggling notation are non-notable, then say so, and redirect the article to Siteswap. If it's not the case, keep. NVO (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What made you think I was a juggling expert? ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 21:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite simple. Statement of original research assume knowledge of pre-existing research on the topic. Absence of sources is evident to anyone; presence of original research is not. NVO (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So you mean you know perfectly well that I'm not a juggling expert, and just called me one so that you could then make a pedantic point about the precise definition of "original research" versus "unsourced material"? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 11:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is perfect, not even yours truly. Please, next time, do some homework before nomination, and, second, this sort of bickering should be moved elsewhere. NVO (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sure the page needs a good rewrite and a review should be undertaken to rationalise the various related articles. However, these are editorial matters. This is a perfectly encyclopedic topic and sources are avaialable - [1], [2], [3] etc Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. Could nominators give better explained, more thought out and more respectful nominations? I don't see any evidence of following WP:BEFORE from the nominator. I'd proposed a merge to Juggling pattern as I thought the two topics could be best treated together, would appreciate thoughts on that proposal. Fences&Windows 03:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is has much promise and deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per this potential source. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 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.