Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joggling


 * 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   speedy keep. The only delete !votes seem to be from single purpose accounts (non-admin closure)  D u s t i SPEAK!! 05:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Joggling

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable, probably a hoax. Late-edition OED defines "joggling" only as a shaky motion. Google search for "joggle" turns up thousands of results, but they are mainly games, products, and software projects by that name: scores of which, by the google metric, are more important than this (supposed) sport. Egnalebd (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - did you check the external links on the article itself? You'll find a lot of discussion about the activity by actual human beings. It has plenty of participation, despite the OED. Perhaps you think it should be turned into a disambiguation page, and this be turned into, say Joggling (sport)? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see a few private web pages, nothing satisfying WP:N. In any case, I'd prefer it if we reserved the word sport for activities that men do. Egnalebd (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Obviously an erroneous deletion rationale. Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely not a hoax, I searched for ("owen morse" joggling) and found a Sports Illustrated article about it and the guy in the picture, an article in The Australian and this one in the Montreal Gazette mentioning Morse and his record-breaking exploits. I have to admit, the balls in the pic do look like a lousy Photoshop job. Holly25 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Coverage in "News of the Weird" does not merit something an entry in an encyclopedia. Egnalebd (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is coverage in three countries, including an article in the world's biggest sports publication, and recognition by the Guinness World Records. Weirdness isn't a valid reason for deletion. Holly25 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lack of notability is, however. Quadricode (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

— Quadricode (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — CESSMASTER (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per Holly25. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just a bunch of esoteric nonsense nobody cares about. This article sounds like I prank I'd do when I was 14. CESSMASTER (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete The rationale is sound. Aside from miscellaneous uses of the word "joggling", an encyclopaedic entry is not merited. In addition, "joggle" is a word recognized by the Random House and American Heritage dictionaries defined as "shaking, jolting", along with its noun form used in construction and carpentry. Quadricode (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, having the nominator and these two defender accounts turn up on their only AfD all within 15 minutes of one another, after 5 "keeps"? What are the odds? Holly25 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I am constantly bothered by people attacking articles and making comments on something they don't know about on these AFDs as if their knowledge is what decides what is important. OK, running is my area of expertise.  Joggling is an element within the sport.  There are competitors and competitions within our events.  Its been around for years.  Lots more can be built upon the information available.  It certainly merits an article.Trackinfo (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.