Deletion of Quizbowl

Comment: Per , though I'm not inclined to do it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: db-g11;;  I could go on . . .Strongly support arguments of
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:NOR)

Comment: http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_product=NewsBank&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=0FF6827C6B6EAA04&p_docnum=148&p_queryname=3 and another ... The point:  with minimal effort and limited time, I found three newspaper articles directly focusing on quizbowl ... and there's at leat one book (noted above).  I think that demonstrates the existence of reliable sources which meets  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: Goodness knows some of the accusations flying here could be easily believed, but I went to the article and I am having problems finding evidence of the accusations being made against the article.  Could any of the folks supporting deletion provide specific examples from the article as to bias, nurturing of hatred, and use of the article as a |soapbox
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: I was the nominator of the National Academic Championship's deletion.  I spent 3-4 months searching for sources ... I even looked in the archives of the Chicago Sun-Times (the tournament routinely used Chicago as a host city), and could find no articles directly addressing the NAC (I found some articles noting winners, but that does not meet ).  There ''are'' sources for quizbowl out there.  I will admit that the article is not well written, and could use sourcing and cleanup, but there are sources, and it could be cleaned up.  As I recall, Ken Jennings wrote a book that addressed quizbowl and its community (just for starters) ... I note that the nominator of this article has only been with wikipedia briefly under this user name;  could there be an elaboration on how long a search for sourcing has been ongoing, because I am a bit concerned that my words are being twisted to support a deletion that it should not?  Is an article becoming a battleground for COI a reason to delete?  Protect, delete unreferenced material ... sure ... but delete ... no
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)