Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight 8
I'm not as happy with the sourcing as I would otherwise be, as I'm kind of iffy on some of the ones I've added. I've also largely cleaned the article up to remove the puffery. In any case, there's enough to where I think this could pass as a weak keep overall. I found a bunch of http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/1608 brief mentions that I don't use towards notability ( and all that), but there's just enough to where this might just barely squeak by. It's very close, in any case, so I won't argue too much if it isn't kept. No problem with the content being userfied, but considering that the original editor is long gone and likely had COI issues, I'm not sure who would be interested
— User:Tokyogirl79, 05:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:TRIVIAL (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)