Deletion of Flip tricks (skateboarding)

Comment: I don't mean to sound too critical here, but if sources are both confirmed to exist and are readily available, I don't think it's a good idea to nominate an article for deletion simply because no one has added them yet. The issue (attribution) seems to be a matter of verifiability as opposed to original research, and if we know for a fact that the information ''is'' verifiable, yet is missing citations, the best thing to do is to find some sources and cite them rather than nominate the article for deletion. It seems that your argument is based around the idea that if the article is kept, it is unlikely that the article's main contributors will attempt to attribute sources. That being said, deletion is not conditional. It's generally not a good idea to delete an article that can be easily be improved simply because no one else has improved it. In these situations I'd say the ideal thing to do would be to |fix it yourself. As I have said before, the problem is not that the content cannot be verified, but simply that the article ''has'' not been verified. As such, I see no conflict with Wikipedia policy, and I don't see how the idea that the article's main contributors don't seem willing enough to improve the article is a rationale for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)

Comment: violates , and #INFO. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: per nominator, and #INFO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This is kind of unique.  #INFO is forefront in this case, no question, but this article also has the very distinctive flavor of a |howto document, if only slightly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:HOWTO)