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--JForget 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodsball[edit]

This whole article is way too detailed for the lack of reference, this article and all the small article comming from it should be deleted or a lest heavely modified. Those article where written by one happy paintball player who wanted to share is experience. that person should read the rule of editing and mainly this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not , there is a lot of thing on that article that fit on what wikipedia is not. Reliable sources are needed, someone stating himself and saying that we have to take is "word for it" just show us how unreliable the article is, i doubt they are holder of universal truth and knowledge. Its not because this is an open encyclopedia that you can write everithing you know to share with other, quoting from the rule page "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars.". More info is not always good, that's why the article failed its good article nomination, simply because its useless. it should be delete or greatly modified GunSlingerFrag (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC) — GunSlingerFrag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. The article needs better refs, and I've tagged it appropriately. I had never heard of "Woodsball" but a google search suggests 311,000 hits, which suggests that there is enough there to support an article here. It needs trimming to a suitable level, but I don't think deletion is the only answer.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a real form of paintball, and it does need better refs, but the term is widely accepted among players. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it didn't make good article does not mean it should be deleted. As already said, better refs are needed, but that means work needs to be done, not that it should be deleted. Dissentor (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Dissentor. Better refs. A lack of references is no reason for a deletion. --Fromgermany (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article reads fairly well and although it needs work (sources) it seems like a reasonable topic that a comprehensive encyclopedia would include. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An encyclopaedic article needing references. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above points. --Shark face 217 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.