Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Types of gestures


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Types of gestures

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

This article has been tagged as lacking in sources since July of last year with little in the way of appreciable improvement. It is a giant hodge-podge of original research that has less than 10 useful citations to cover over 100 individual sections and about 100 KB of text, many of which are not exactly applicable. There already exists a List of gestures (sans the original research) that accomplishes what this article is trying to do. Some cleanup might be possible but given the existing state of the article (reams of unsourced text), the fact that a suitable list already exists, and the fact that requests for better citing have gone pretty much unanswered for about a year leads be to believe this is best deleted and a simple redirect to the list left behind in its place. Shereth 16:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The aforementioned list does well what this article does poorly. Most notable gestures have articles of their own anyway. Very little in the article is sourced and new, unsourced material is added frequently. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Although the page in its current form is a mass of WP:original research and WP:trivia, the organization by description (i.e. "Using one hand," "Using two hands," "Hand with body" etc.) seems like an improvement over the use of nicknames (i.e. "A-ok" to "Zemnoy poklon") used at List of gestures. Would a merge, accompanied by a purge of unsourced original research, be more trouble than it's worth? (See below) Cnilep (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It might make sense to "steal" the format but since the target article is a list, there's not really anything to merge. Shereth 18:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A good start on a highly notable topic. "Stealing" would violate our licence and so deletion is contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt that duplicating the format of one article and applying it to another, sans attribution, would constitute a licensing violation. Shereth 22:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Colonel Warden that the article is a good start, since it has essentially no content that is not original research. I agree that the topic is notable, but it is already covered at List of gestures. On the other hand a I agree with Shereth that emulating a format is no violation of GFDL or any other standard of copyright or basic fairness. Cnilep (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, almost nothing in the article is original research. What you mean is that it is original writing but please understand that it is mandatory that our articles are written in this way as they will otherwise fail our policies on WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:PLAGIARISM.  We are here to write our own work, not copy that of others. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Without proof to the contrary (i.e. reliable sources), it appears to be original research. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what I mean is that it is original research, as defined by official English Wikipedia policy. For example, there is no evidence that anyone other than Wikipedia User:Thirtysilver has done research suggesting that "Groin Point [is] Commonly used to show disdain and apathy toward someone or something one sees as stupid and worthless." (I don't mean to single out Thirtysilver; many editors do this - I may even be guilty of it myself.) The article cites no reliable third-party sources to that effect. Furthermore, a search of Google scholar using the search terms groin point, disdain, and apathy does not match any articles. This doesn't mean that the claim not true, but it does suggest that the claim is original research. We appear to have an honest, good-faith disagreement about the quality of the current article, and about the best way to preserve the valuable content within it. Cnilep (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This article is definitely notable. This is not original research and I believe more source can be added later on. The lack of sources is because of the fact that these information is hardly mention in serious references. The content is very informational and can be improved later. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If this article is to be kept, the references need to be added now, not later. Whatever cannot be referenced, should be stripped until a reliable source can be found. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy. I have formatted List of gestures in a fashion similar to Types of gestures. (I also made note of this, with links to Types of gestures and its talk page, at Talk:List of gestures, so there should be no question of "stealing" as copyvio.) Since the information for which there is reliable sources is largely duplicated there, deleting Types of gestures will cause the loss of only unsourced, less-reliable information. If there is no consensus to delete, perhaps the page should be userfied until reliable sources can be located. Cnilep (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is notable, so let it be. If you see anything in this article you believe needs a reference, then add a citation needed tag to it.  You don't delete an article, because a few parts of it look like they might be original research.  You tag it, discuss it on the talk page, and if necessary, eliminate those parts.  Deleting an article should always be the last resort, not the first.   D r e a m Focus  22:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know how many tags it would need? Throughout its history, it has had various tags but no one acts to make corrections. Instead, more and more uncited claims were added. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable topic, lots of content. Granite thump (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep very notable topic that needs an article here. Yes it needs more citations but deleting the article isn't the way to make them appear. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 15 June 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.