Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redskin rule

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Redskin rule

Redskin rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is pure original research about something not notable Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is very notable. I have posted links to several articles in mainstream media about it. A lot of football fans and/or political junkies know about this, and take an extra interest in the last Redskin game each presidential election to see if the rule will keep going. What is your reason for wanting to delete it? This is a solid contribution. Heinz it up 57, 16:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup — No one could not ignore the numerous references by the media of the supposed impact of the Steelers/Redskins game on today's 2008 United States presidential election the last few days. MuZemike (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • SCJessey -- Can you please clarify your reason? I just think this is quite interesting. Take a look at this article http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/03/redskins-rule-ideal-for-monday-night/. The article specifically calls it the Redskin Rule. I didn't just make this up. Google something like "Redskin rule" or "Redskins Obama McCain" and you'll find a lot. Heinz it up 57 (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This has been around for some time, and is the subject of coverage by multiple, non-trivial sources. Acroterion _(talk) 16:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notability well established. Nomination refers to policies/guidelines implying they say things they don't. WilyD 17:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability asserted with references. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- Needs some serious re-writing and cleanup to be a decent article, but notability is established, and I see nothing that can't be fixed. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely not entirely ready for a wiki article but it's not OR. --Banime (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's coming along, has some good material, interesting topic and clearly not OR. Sibitysam (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - has extensive media coverage, so it's definitely not OR. matt91486 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2008 (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.