Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports day


 * 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sports day

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The Article is totally unsalvageable and contains little encyclopaedic information. Sources have been searched for that are reliable since January 2008, but have not been found. This article therefor fails, WP:Notability, WP:Reliable, WP:Verifiable, WP:Not and WP:Cruft Lucy-marie (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Possibly better belongs in a dictionary.  There is a tradition of a school sports day in at least the UK.  Whilst no single sports day is notable, the concept itself probably is.  Whilst a search of "sports day" returns little, "school sports day" returns much more - typically the type of story that appears in Criticsms of ... articles and sections.  Whilst the dreaded criticisms section is currently unreferenced, the stories covered sound familiar and are attributed to the type of people (Melanie Phillips) I would expect to hear them from. Pit-yacker (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: When we delete something, it should be because the articles content in utterly unworthy of being in an encyclopedia, not because something is too hard to reference. Looking over the "What links here" section part of the problem appears to be this page is only maintained by the Japanese Cultural Task Force (of which it's only mentioned as a possible overlap) I imagine if you got an enducation task force on the topic you'd find that it may not be so hard to cite. --Deathawk (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is our editing policy to keep articles such as this and improve them. The claims of the nomination are not supported by evidence and are easy to rebut.  Finding sources is easy - just click on the search links provided above.  One soon finds sources such as this which provide ample support for the content.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Disagree it's unsalvagable, and there are plenty of sources, such as books.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please work away on the page and prove its worth.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2010 (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.