Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlanta CorpsVets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atlanta CorpsVets

Atlanta CorpsVets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Originally deleted as "blatant advertising" under WP:CSD#G11, but faced a good-faith challenge at WP:DRV where it was additionally felt not to pass the G11 standard. I restored this because of a testable claim made here. AfD should consider such things. Splash - tk 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Due to real life (aka school) I will not be able to work on this until Nov 28. Please stand by as I collect my sources! Werecowmoo (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion

I may not be a registered user, but I see nothing wrong with this article. It may need to be rewritten a little so it sounds better. Otherwise, important subject being as there are only 2 drum corps left in Georgia now.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Reason for deletion? It seems to be a notability issue and appears to be partially solved through references. If my vote counts i say KEEP.WolfenUWG 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion

I may not be a registered user, but I see nothing wrong with this article. It may need to be rewritten a little so it sounds better. Otherwise, important subject being as there are only 2 drum corps left in Georgia now.

  • Keep The Atlanta CorpsVets are a perennial DCA finalist corps and clearly satisfy the notability requirement. I'm sure Weremoocow will be able to annotate the article sufficiently. --JimBurnell 17:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article might need help, but deleting it will just create a void that will no doubt be filled again. I see nothing so wrong with the article that a simple Wiki "advert" or "NPOV" note at the top couldn't bandage. If the notability of the article is being questioned, that's silly; whoever nominated for deletion on that basis is simply ignorant of the drum corps activity. Deleting the article would be ridiculously excessive.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is written primarily from a neutral standpoint and has satisfied all requirements. A cleanup tag would be more accurate.Werecowmoo (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (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.