Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocastle Manoeuvre

Rocastle Manoeuvre[edit]

Rocastle Manoeuvre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Deleted db-nonsense, re-created & deletion queried. Stated to be a soccer football maneuver. Anthony Appleyard 10:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know anything about the Rocastle thing but why is it by definition nonsense? The not dissimilar "Cruyff Turn" is very famous for example. I'm guessing that as you call it a 'soccer football' move you're not fully au fait with the intricacies of the game. Nick mallory 10:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least for now. Original db may have been onto an incomplete page. Seems to have at least one decent source, which could be improved on. Suggest adding {{references}} tag if AfD results in Keep decision. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based solely on nominator's reason. Why do you think it's nonsense? It's referenced in a UK National newspaper, and seems feasible to me. Admittedly it may well fail WP:NOTABILITY and WP:OR, but I don't think it's nonsense. From the Google results, should probably be renamed Marseille turn. Paulbrock 10:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for the moment Categorically not nonsense, but I'm not sure an article can be written on it that satisfies WP:V - a Google search on "Zidane roulette", for instance, brings up hundreds of results, but they're mainly blogs or YouTube videos.... ChrisTheDude 10:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not as nonsense, but because, given the one source quoted, this article is built purely on speculation and hearsay. The main name in the article is no longer with us, and cannot confirm or deny, for his part, his involvement in the alleged 'notable' football skill described in the article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also cannot help but suspect that this may violate WP:NOR, but mere suspicion is no grounds for me to include this comment in my vote above. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the same reasons as Paulbrock. It is quite clearly not nonsense at all. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the old deleted edits of Rocastle Manoeuvre, so you can see its full history and who speedy-delete-tagged it. Anthony Appleyard 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, thanks for the transparency. The original speedy deletion tag was placed one minute after the page was created, when there was no content. The creator seems to be working on the article, and has added several sources in the few hours since the AFD was proposed. I suggest that the creator chose an incorrect name for the article, and this has caused the confusion, combined with over-reliance on a google test. Paulbrock 01:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. The article certainly isn't nonsense and the creator appears to be working on sources. Dave101→talk  11:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename as Marseille Turn, which is the more ususal name for this manoeuvre (although there's nothing wrong with saying in the article that it is also known in some places as the Rocastle Turn. This is a recognised skill which is widely referred to. Robotforaday 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.