Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musical skates


 * 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 of the nomination was delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Musical skates


Advert for a non-notable product. No solid evidence that this any more than one man's (author's) garage project. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be a hoax, possible WP:BJAODN. Yank  sox  19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:Wha?, and WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SPAM don't think too hard. Ste4k 23:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a hoax or spam. This is a real product which has not been widely popularized in the skating comunity yet, since it is still in production and therefore may fall in the Non-notable category. Nevertheless, the responses of all skaters who have seen it and tried it are extremely positive. I can attach video clips of its usage on ice if needed Vnenov 18:10, 2 July 2006 (PDT)
 * Please read, WP:NOT (specifically Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Yank  sox  01:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep! I have seen the musical skates in action, and they are truly amazing. My son is a competitive ice dancer, and I and his coach believe that this instrument would be a fantastic training tool (helping ensure that the skaters are on the correct edge, and in unison) and that it has the potential to to revolutionize ice dance by having the skaters create their own music as they skate.
 * Delete on the basis of the author's own evaluation, not widely popularised. Tyrenius 02:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment (by the author)If a newly discovered plant species can warrant an article in Wikipedia just because it fits in the grand scheme of botanical classification even though it might never become widely noted except by a handful of botanists, why shouldn't a truly new musical instrument (which definitely has the potential of bridging ice dance and musical expression in a way that has never previously been suggested), which has not had time to become popularized, be given the same chance in Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but why not support a truly innovative tool which, if or when it becomes well-known, could change the world of figure skating? --Vnenov 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's complete speculation. You don't know if it will be successful. Wikipedia is purposely designed to function slowly since it is supposed to keep record really of what is notable and has happened in the past. We can't pretend to be Ms. Cleo and just put what we think will be big. That is letting opinions seep through articles and just not good. Yank  sox  05:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The device is a physical reality and therefore "has happened in the past". It has been noted by more than a handfull of skaters at several ice rinks in the US and Canada. Even though it is not "big" or will never be "big" it is definitely unique. It is probably the most unique gadget to be attached to skates ever since skates were first snapped onto boots centuries ago (this is not just the personal oppinion of the author) --Vnenov 05:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Advertisement, author name Vnenov is rather similar to inventor Valeriy Nenov, suggesting violation NPOV, or at least violation of original research.  This is not an argument over whether the skates exist, will sell well, or are unique.  it's about WP not being a newspaper, nor a free webhost.  Tychocat 14:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am an Ice Dancer and had the privilege of trying the Skatron. This is truly and amazing device that will allow me to drastically improve my skating skills.--Mleglise1126 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I found it funny that afdanons was added to this. Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:40, 10 July 2006 (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.