Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Theory of Sailing


 * 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. Discussion regarding potential editoral decisions should continue elsewhere. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Theory of Sailing

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Appears to be pure OR, and the notability is questionable as well. Tim Song (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a new article which does need further work on it. It is important to develope articles like this which explain the theories behind such a popular sport. I am not sure what the comments above mean as I am new to wiki. Any advice explaining how to improve this article would be gratefully received.--Ma jo Ward (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification: some parts of the topic may normally go into sailing. But, given that that article already has a pretty thorough explanation of the physics and the current shape of the article, I would oppose a merge. Tim Song (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm pretty confident that sailing theory is a very notable subject. This article isn't off to a great start, but if the creator is willing to start basing the content on citations to reliable sources it would be a worthwhile endeavor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but don't we already have a discussion of this in sailing? Tim Song (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the article in sailing does not have enought scope to talk about exactly how a sailor would get the best from his vessel and at the same time refer the sailor to the theories behind these techniques. There is also a page of windsurfing which could also be linked into this article. It does need farther develeopment but as this is a large research area it should be expected that such an article would take time to be developed and will be of great help to those looking for father explaination on this subject. Please also could you tell me what OR is. --Ma jo Ward (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a manual, a textbook, a complete exposition of all possible details, or a place for original research(OR). Tim Song (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep & Expand Covered to some extent in the main article on sailing. However, there is the possibility of expansion here in considerably more detail.  WP articles do contain information on how to do things, in general outline, though not step by step--it's the best way of making a technical subject clear  Anyone who actually tries to sail based only on the instructions in  Wikipedia articles would probably progress in a downwards direction.   This article also does not come near covering "all possible detail,"  full detail on this is a long technical book, not a short article. Nor is any of this OR--it has all been covered elsewhere and can be referred to. DGG (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to sailing, with no prejudice to a sourced replacement article being created down the line. As it stands, it's unacceptable for Wikipedia. Mintrick (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up - yes article is written in an essay-style and without references is unclear as to whether article is OR or copyvio or who knows what. However, article quality is not an indicator for deletion. The subject is unquestionably notable and the parent article could be big enough for subarticles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to sailing as per Mintrick. I could possibly convinced to reconsider if it were a simple referenced stub. As is, it doesn't meet WP:V and Aerodynamics already exists. Location (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2009 (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.