Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheelie (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Wheelie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

The intro of this article is a definition of the word, which is at Wiktionary already. The remainder of the article is a how-to on wheelies, which I've copied over to Wikibooks:. Thus, there is nothing encyclopedic here.--Dbratland (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Sports-related deletions and Game-related deletions. --Closeapple (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the article content is currently a 'how-to', but unless there is another article describing this maneuver I don't agree the page should be deleted. Instead, it should be cleaned up. Good work to new editor Special:Contributions/128.205.15.127 Fancy steve (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge from Stoppie. Looks like Stoppie is written more the way Wheelie should be; if the lengthy how-to is removed/summarized and the two are merged there should be enough to salvage.  I would normally say "merge to Stoppie" for an article like this, but "Wheelie" is the more general article. --Closeapple (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But what part of Wheelie should be kept? All of Wheelie is definition and a how-to.  Not that Stoppie looks like much more than a definition of the word followed by a terse but well-illustrated how-to, which should also probably be moved to Wikibooks.  To me this looks like trying to create an encyclopedic aritcle by merging two non-encyclopedic articles together and hoping nobody notices the content belongs elsewhere.  --Dbratland (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In Wheelie, keeping only the first sentence from each paragraph and only the first three sentences from Wheelie would seem to do the trick. The rest would be OK with some more clean-up. --Closeapple (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe Wheelie, Stoppie, and Motorcycle stunt riding could be merged into "Cycle stunt riding"; I tried to find an article like that to begin with, but couldn't &mdash; the current articles seem to concentrate on either bicycles or motorcycles, but not the stunts common between them. Artistic cycling and Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics are closely related but stunt riding seems slightly out of scope for those.  Should someone be bold?  I think "cycle stunt riding" would be an encyclopedic topic, but the title seems awkward. --Closeapple (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, I relent. The recently added section on history looks weak, but sources exist: , , .  Doug Domokos probably deserves his own page.  The how-to stuff defnitely needs to go, whether Wikibooks will accept it or not.  I would argue also that pages that attempt to cover both motorcycles and bicycles together tend to create more problems than they solve, fwiw.  --Dbratland (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems that merging motorcycle-specific stuff in would be a bit ugly. My current brainstorm: Dump the how-to, of course.  Merge Wheelie, Stoppie, and any other non-motor-specific maneuvers into "Stunt cycling".  (I was trying to find a less awkward term than "Cycle stunt riding".)   Motorcycle stunt riding stays its own article as Dbratland mentioned; probably merge Stunters up into Motorcycle stunt riding, but maybe that's for a different discussion.  I mention Stunters because there might be a little bit of content that can merge up into Stunt cycling instead.  If "stunt cycling" sounds like asking for trouble, maybe use "Bicycle stunt riding" for symmetry with Motorcycle stunt riding &mdash; but it seems that wheelies and stoppies are common to both. --Closeapple (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, this seems like a perfect case to keep bicycling and motorcycling in two articles- like the bicycle/motorcycle stunt riding. After all, the similarities are few. It might be worth a sentence in each pointing to the other, but otherwise? I'm still torn on the outcome of this deletion unless the content is filtered into Bicycle stunt riding and Motorcycle stunt riding. tedder (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold and merge Stunters into Motorcycle stunt riding &mdash; it needs a lot of cleanup. In relation to the current AfD: Motorcycle stunt riding contains a lot of stunts, including various forms of wheelie, that seem to be common to bicycles and motorcycles.  If the bicycle-only article is created, some of that information will probably be useful (once backed up with reliable sources). --Closeapple (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.superstreetbike.com/streets/0703_sbkp_history_of_stunting/index.html is a source for the soldiers pictured in life magazine. I'm very new to Wikipedia and I couldn't add it as a citation. I'm Special:Contributions/128.205.15.127 and I apoligize in advance if I am not following proper procedure. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.190.149 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep, as editorial and merging work seems to be underway, and wheelies have sufficient sourcing for their own article. Look in the Google Scholar results; there are enough references to wheelies in wheelchairs alone to justify an article. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have made the article more encyclopedic by adding facts and greatly reducing the size of the tutorial portion. I also added a small portion on gyroscopic stabilization.  The original article was poorly written, but I intend to slowly improve it as I come up with information reasonable and relevant to be part of an encyclopedia.  I think the video should be replaced with a better example, as there are many out there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.15.206 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you've added various things under two or three different IP addresses. That's nice as far as it goes, but you aren't citing sources, and much of what you've written looks like original research and opinion.  You should expect to see edits like that deleted unless you can cite sources for it, and the uncited material doesn't do much to build a case to keep the article.  It only muddies the water for those looking for something worth keeping.  --Dbratland (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of my edits are grammar and word choice corrections to clarify the concepts, as well as trimming the tutorial as suggested by many above. The rest is just logic and simple physics.  I'm new to Wikipedia so perhaps you could provide me with an example of how anything I have written is original research or opinion.  The history paragraph could have 3 citations, but I cant add the third.  I wrote it in earlier on this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.15.206 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The best place to discuss this is Talk:Wheelie rather than here. But briefly, your "logic and simple physics" goes far beyond simple deductions, and you should find sources before adding these edits.  If these ideas are as obvious as you say, then sources should be commonplace.  Please do not replace the deleted tutorial and how-to advice. Instead, edit How to wheelie.--Dbratland (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but only with properly sourced additions. I just reverted a bunch of stuff by the aforementioned (and undoubtedly well intentioned) IP editor as it wasn't properly sourced. I did just add some info about legality - UK police and courts take a tough line on wheelies and will prosecute. I think this is relevant information. It would be good to expand the article with information about legality in other countries. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:17, 20 December 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.