Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centennial Jay


 * 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. No prejudice for or against a merger or redirect — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Centennial Jay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a mascot that existed for a single game 2 years ago to mark the 100 year anniversary of the design of the original Jayhawk. It also at any point was never an official mascot for University of Kansas Athletics. The article is also poorly written with many issues. Rockchalk 717 03:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep poorly written, yes. But it can be saved. The history of the mascot goes back to 1912.  I'm good with this as a stub and leave the content up to editors.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The history is of the original Jayhawk logo (see ) But the actual mascot has no history and only existed for one game. That's why it was called Centennial Jay.-- Rockchalk 717 00:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (Somebody explain to me why the K-State guy wants to keep this and the KU guy doesn't!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The mascot appeared at hundreds of events including football homecoming. It was called Centennial Jay because it was based on a hundred year old design. NapalmSunday (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kansas Jayhawks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It was an official mascot and made several appearances at events. If you think the writing can be improved you should edit it. The 1912 Jayhawk is worthy of inclusion as a topic and should not be deleted. NapalmSunday (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep subject to possible merge to a comprehensive article about all the mascots, either at Kansas Jayhawks or more likely, since there may be too much content to fit it all there, at a new spinout article Kansas Jayhawks mascots. It's not clear to me that having three separate articles about the KU mascots is the best way to cover the topic; a merge into one comprehensive article would probably be an improvement.  However, the content at issue in this AfD is encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no way there should be 3 articles on a school's mascot. They should either be combined into 1 article or combined at Kansas Jayhawks. Mdtemp (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Response if all three mascots are able to stand on their own notability then all three or thirty-three mascots would be notable and therefore according to WP:N would have their own article. The question is this:  "Is Centennial Jay notable?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it doesn't appear that all three are individually notable. There is a lack of significant coverage for Centennial Jay and it appears to fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Therefore, I would vote Merge into Kansas Jayhawks. Mdtemp (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2014 (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.