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 delete without prejudice. Recreate when this is actually covered by outside sources. Right now this article can't help but resemble a promotional brochure because nobody in the media has talked about it yet. Shii (tock) 14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Athletic Derby Endeavor[edit]

Modern Athletic Derby Endeavor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The association isn't notable enough per WP:ORG since most of the cited sources are self published, no notable media coverage, has no international (the lead of the article is wrong to state Australia and Europe since it isn't supported in the article), the use of facebook as a source. It may have leagues in the US however this makes it a non-notable association and in fact its own website has no rating on Alexa, one would expect that if this was a notable league it would have a lot of traffic (which would give it a rating). It seems to me that some editors (possibly the creator) have a connection to MADE and are trying to use Wikipedia for the association's benefit (self promotion). Bidgee (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to note that if you are going to be submitting non-notable wikis to be deleted you should also submit your own team's wiki since they have considerably less coverage than MADE. Fair is fair, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain jim1 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read her profile a bit more thoroughly, you'll notice that she lives in Australia. Australia to Oakland would be one heck of a commute. TimBRoy (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bidgee (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again you use facebook which is not a reliable source. Most of the cited sources in the article are questionable, reason why Wikipedia requires contributors to use third party sources which are verifiable and reliable. Your claim of "over 30 leagues" is based on a facebook page and your claim of MADE being "the largest co-ed association" is pure original research. Regards to Google, it is not a tool to see if something is notable or not based on a number of results, it is a tool to assist you in finding good reliable sources. The results on the search are mostly just facebook pages and websites who a domain sitting and reuse facebook pages. Bidgee (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note, Jim, that you really need to have independent sources - its own Facebook page is not that, and therefore useless to us. — Joseph Fox 04:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand that facebook is not considered reliable which is why I have since referenced the DerbyRoster.com site which lists 20 leagues. I am not the bookkeeper for MADE so I can't give you an exact number. I also understand that the number of search results is not PROOF of notability, but that is exactly what was attempted by the opposing side when referring to the number of Google News results. I was simply showing that the information is out there and is still being compiled. However, allow me to cite 3rd party pages that do include information about MADE, CCRE (their annual derby expo in wildwood, etc). I would like to remind readers that it has been proven they are international and host international events. The presence of big-name sponsors (Nutcase & 808 skates) contributing to MADE should also be considered significant and I am not going to include member-league's websites who indicate they skate MADE as there are too many.. although I can if you would like.
Roller Derby Returns to the Wildwoods Convention Center cites MADE's involvement, the large turnout from all over the country, as well as celebrity appearances.
Roller Derby Inside Track covering MADE as 1 of 7 associations (including WFDTA) while reviewing the "State of Roller Derby"
Ashburn Patch's sport section covering a local team's upcoming game. This indicates they are playing under the MADE rule-set with a quick description of the association. There are tons of articles just like this on the net. Like this one and this one.
CCRE's website indicating they are MADE
OSDA covering CCRE (MADE's expo) in 2009.
Yahoo! News covering CCRE - remember this is MADE's event. They created the event and host it yearly.
The article no longer exists, but here's the quick intro for a South Jersey paper covering CCRE in 2010.
South Jersey magazine highlighting CCRE.
The overall point is that they are significant, have the 2nd largest number of leagues in this country (a fact not disputed), host large events, and play international games. While sources aren't as plentiful as they are with WFDTA, they are there if you look for them (or give others ample time to compile them). Captain jim1 (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Colossal Coastal Derby Expo, there is not a single reference to the competition on Google News. I believe an article about the event would be deleted as it would not be notability mentioned at WP:SPORTSEVENT. The issue of the fact of it being the second largest league in the United States is in dispute, as there are no reliable sources to support this. If there were reliable, independent sources that supported that claim, I might be inclined to change my vote. --LauraHale (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roller derby is not exactly the most prevalent of sports. Being featured in Google news does not make or break a sport. The event was featured on Yahoo! news as I linked above. I have provided adequate sources that show this event is large and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain jim1 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the Yahoo News link and I see nothing mentioned about MADE, nothing, nil, zilch. Bidgee (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is about CCRE which is a MADE created/sanctioned event. With your claim that In regards to Colossal Coastal Derby Expo, there is not a single reference to the competition on Google News. I responded that saying, it was covered in Yahoo! news. The point is that the association has started an event that has received significant coverage. I refer you back to the [ccderbyexpo.com CCRE] page and the Vicious Circle article if you need to read how it is involved with MADE. CLEARLY the association has had some impact.Captain jim1 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no mention in the article about MADE, whether or not CCRE is a event created and sanction by MADE and even then the news article doesn't even state who created it or sanctions it. Vicious Circle as a source is questionable, who was the author, who runs the magazine, what are there background, ect (reason why we have WP:RS and WP:V). Bidgee (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hopefully the above mentioned articles should indicate that there are more than 'passing mentions' of the association and it's activities and member leagues. To claim there is no information out there is simply untrue. I understand that Puerto Rico is not their own country, but an undisputed common-wealth, but they are certainly not considered part of the United States by traditional terms. Now we are splitting hairs. There seems to be a concerted effort by representatives of WFDTA to remove all mention of other associations from wikipedia. The contributer of this deletion is in fact a member of WFTDA and is likely biased. How is it that the 2nd largest US association isn't notable? Seriously. Captain jim1 (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I am correct. That assumption has been made under the pretense that your User Profile picture is the same as one featured in the Roller Derby article with the caption "Demanda Riot, a B.ay A.rea D.erby Girl (San Francisco, California) prepares to block.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain jim1 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a ridiculous argument that it is almost a personal attack... Lads and Lasses: AGF please!Night of the Big Wind talk 14:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment: I don't have time at the moment to reply to all of your comments however I am not a member of WFTDA or affiliated with any other association, never have been, so your allegation ("The contributer of this deletion is in fact a member of WFTDA and is likely biased") that I am a member is false. The fact is I have never been to a roller derby event. Bidgee (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:COI was directed at LauraHale and not you. My apologies for getting the originator of the deletion motion incorrect. However, I still feel that there is and has been a concerted effort by WFDTA members to keep other associations off of wikipedia. Repeatedly they have shot down the claim that MADE is the 2nd largest association in the United States, even though I sited the DerbyRoster.com site. How come no one can tell me who the 2nd largest association is.. if it isn't MADE?Captain jim1 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LauraHale has no COI with any roller derby organisation, she has an interest in watching roller derby games as a spectator and taking photographs and uploading them onto Wikimedia Commons). I have no idea why you think she has a COI when she doesn't and making such claim without facts and only assumptions is damaging (intentional or not). DerbyRoster is something I wouldn't call reliable, the list for all we know is out of date since no information is listed about when it was added and when it was last updated, also the source (reliable, third party and verifiable) needs to state that MADE is the second largest association in the USA, otherwise it's just based on your original research. Bidgee (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are you disregarding all of the sources I have mentioned above? Inside Derby, Yahoo! news, local new papers and city websites aren't considered adequate coverage? I would love to quote these sources in articles, but there was hardly any time as it has been a constant battle with people who modify every chance made. I've spent the majority of my time on wikipedia debating if it's notable rather than adding data and references. Captain jim1 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper like the Philadelphia Enquirer would be a good, reliable source - better, for Wikipedia purposes, than anything you list above. Wildwood 365 appears to be a blog, and the Yahoo link also appears to be unmoderated content. The newspaper websites are much better, but none of them give any detail on MADE, and some do not mention it. They cannot themselves demonstrate that MADE is notable, by Wikipedia standards, as they don't provide the required "Significant coverage". If MADE can be shown to be notable, then their information on the CCRE would be a useful inclusion.
The Inside Track article is definitely the best source - it is focussed on, and has lots of detail on, MADE. I believe that it is sufficiently reliable that it can be used as a source for the article, but, as it is an interview with a MADE representative, it doesn't provided the "neutral point of view" required to meet WP:NOTABILITY. None of this is to say that MADE is not a perfectly worthwhile organisation, which may well have a great ruleset and fantastic skaters. If you have these good sources to hand, I strongly suggest including them in the article, as they will be far more likely to change people's minds than any debating points you may make. Warofdreams talk 17:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do you consider this video from ABC 6 valid enough? Remember that the CCRE event is hosted by MADE and the league featured in the video is a MADE league and contains members who co-founded MADE. Captain jim1 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That video has the same problem as the newspaper articles - it doesn't mention MADE, so it cannot demonstrate that the organisation is notable, by Wikipedia standards, as it doesn't provide "significant coverage". Again, it's a perfectly reliable source, and could be used to add information to an article, but in Wikipedia terms, that is quite distinct from demonstrating notability. Warofdreams talk 08:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have said that I am not affiliated with the organisation. There is zero evidence that I am affiliated with the organisation. I attend local bouts, where I pay to get in and sit with the rest of the punters. I think I have made one request on their Facebook page for help finding information. Beyond that, when some one affiliated with the league came in and edited the article, I went to their talk page and discussed their contributions with them, contributions I found valuable and would have loved to used but could not source. Please stop making this accusation until you have actual evidence, other than "disagrees with me" to support it. --LauraHale (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/24.0.130.122 has made 5 edits since October 6, all to the roller derby article and one of them being this keep. --LauraHale (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ABC 6 of Philadelphia covering the upcoming CCRE 2011 - which again is a MADE hosted event. The video doesn't specifically mention MADE, but the [event's website makes it very clear that it's a MADE event. Also, the South Jersey Derby Girls mentioned in the video are a MADE league and include several of the MADE co-founders. Captain jim1 (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you play connect the dots you can quickly and easily establish that the event (which receives significant coverage) was created by, is hosted by and run by a particular association (MADE). Doesn't the fact that an association has created a notable event intrinsically make it notable? Also - how is Derby Roster an unreliable source? They appear to be the only website online to track association statistics, are 3rd party, and have been around since 2005.Captain jim1 (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't play connect the dots in Wikipedia deletion debates. The answer to your question is "no". A source that doesn't even mention the topic by name is of no use in establishing notability. Intrinsic notability and inherited notability are considered arguments to avoid in deletion debates except in narrowly limited circumstances that don't apply here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Official sportorganisation Night of the Big Wind talk 14:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What makes it "official"? WP:ORG states what is needed for an article about any sports organisation, so far nothing has been done to show why MADE is notable nor has there been any work been done to show reliable third party sources that are about MADE. The only sources I've seen and read only make a small mention on MADE or just don't meet the WP:RS and WP:V policies. Bidgee (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, the Roller Derby Inside Track article that has been referenced many times passes both the WP:RS and WP:V policies. No one is arguing that MADE is not an official association.Captain jim1 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can be mentioned on Wikipedia, in articles like List of roller derby associations and Roller derby in the United States, where it wouldn't face the issues of undue weight because of its American only nature, it's acceptance of mixed leagues, and its use of banked tracks. In these cases, the source you mentioned would be perfectly adequate for citing that in the article. The source you've cited however does not help with notability. If you believe it does, then please read the policy, find media coverage that specifically talks extensively about MADE from a main stream, non-roller derby news sources or magazine. Find a roller derby book that mentions them for a page or three. Find about five or ten sources that give even two or three sentences in main stream coverage that mention the organisation. If you can do that, I'll change my vote to keep. --LauraHale (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I would just like to add that Wikipedia should be about presenting good information. The WP guidelines are certainly useful in determining what stays and what doesn't, but I don't believe they need to be followed to a T. I don't think anyone can say that MADE is not a large association in roller derby (although not nearly the size of WFDTA). No one is arguing against the fact that they created a large annual expo or that they have a bunch of leagues in the association. In the US Derby Scene they have been large enough that Roller Derby Inside Track decided to include them in their article about the current "State of Derby". Let's use some common sense and allow the page to stick around. Captain jim1 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". The article reads as self promotion. It goes on to say "remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other". It is hard to fix this, given the lack of sources and the need to rely almost exclusively on their website. Wikipedia is not a directory and just because it exists doesn't mean an article for it should. Reading Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, I'm not sure why ignore all rules is being invoked here. Can you please explain why you think these policies should be ignored? --LauraHale (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means- "'What "Ignore all rules" means'... Its purpose is to keep them [the other rules] from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated."
When what most are agreeing is the largest co-ed association, and the 2nd largest derby association in the country is being disallowed a page because you don't find the sources credible, wikipedia fails. Roller Derby Inside Track, SkateMade.org, [derbyroster.com/made.html DerbyRoster], Collosal Coastal Roller Expo, and many leagues all reference MADE which make it plenty referenced and sourced. Captain jim1 (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources to back up the claim of "Second largest derby association in the United States". This is pure WP:Original research. Beyond that, notability guidelines say numbers do not matter. Thus, notability built on the second biggest is not a good reason to say keep. (I can say that Laura Hale sport's library is the largest library of roller derby and netball books in the country. I can create a Facebook fan page for this and set up an official site. This library lends out material. Comparable size does not make the library notable. Derby Roster, SkateMade, Collosal Coastal Roller Expo are not acceptable sources when it comes to notability. I'm trying to help you here. I really am... I just feel like, in trying to help you keep the article by telling you exactly what you need to keep the article, I've run into a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you can, at a later point, provide the sources requested, I will support WITHOUT PREDJUDICE, a recreation of the article. --00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
And the Roller Derby Inside Track article is not sufficient because...? Here was have a roller derby magazine, completely independent and neutral, who is covering the major associations in roller derby. They even say "Until recently, there have been few governing bodies representing these various styles of derby, but recently several organizations have emerged that warrant some comparison and discussion. As such, we’ve sent invitations to representatives of all the roller derby organizations we know of, and a few other key personnel who are influential in the sport, to participate in our first-ever annual “The State of Derby” series. This will be RDIT’s annual update on the roller derby world, heard directly from those who have a voice or position of influence within the sport of roller derby." source. The argument that it's an interview and the content is not neutral is invalid as a reason to reject the source. The decision to include MADE in the article (1 of 7 associations) proves it is not a 'minor' association. Again, as wikipedia states, it's goal is to "build a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated.". Who is trying to fulfill that goal here? You or me? Captain jim1 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to cite "ignore all rules" but what you aren't mentioning is that you have to gain consensus among interested editors to keep what you want to keep. I see no such consensus here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand I don't have a consensus to keep -- that's why I'm commenting. The purpose of wikipedia, above all else, is to be an encyclopedia. I understand the need to have filters and rules, but can anyone really say that this association is not noteworthy, regardless if it passed the litmus test for sources? There are dozens of derby rosters, articles, association lists, etc online that have all been cited. It should be clear to anyone who is investigating this that MADE has a place in roller derby. Users should be able to come to wikipedia and find information out about associations other than WFTDA. I find it incredibly odd that no one is complaining about the other derby association pages (OSDA, MRDA) whose references have the same 'problems' as the MADE references. The MRDA references are ENTIRELY from their web site. Why is there a concerted effort again MADE and no one else? REMEMBER - wikipedia should be about finding good information, not about who has the best references. Captain jim1 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People are trying very, very hard to help you keep your article. We've repeatedly tried to explain to you what is necessary to "save the article from deletion." WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part will probably contribute to the article being deleted as we've begged for assistance in finding rules that will help satisfy the criteria of notability. Take at face value that we're trying to help hear and that you CANNOT use any roller derby related source to establish general notability or WP:ORG. What other sources do you have that mention MADE? --LauraHale (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have understood everything you've said, the problem is we disagree on the validity of sources. Apparently "roller derby related sources" are no longer valid media institutions? I understand that print, television, etc is BETTER, but you continue to expand the criteria which narrows the list of allowable sources. Captain jim1 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" the problem is we disagree on the validity of sources" Do you understand that your approach is not going to change my mind in terms of the vote? That you're not going to get consensus to keep with the approach you've taken? Your goal should be to convince me and others to change our votes from delete to keep. So long as you absolutely understand that your arguments are valid but aren't going to lead to consensus to keep and you're okay with the article being deleted because you're more concerned with being right, then no problem. --LauraHale (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, there could be reliable sources devoted to roller derby. As far as publications, those sources would have the following characteristics: They would not be self-published. They would have independent, professional editorial control supervising and fact-checking their writers, who would either be professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write. Those publications would be referenced in books published about roller derby. Such publications would have reputations for accuracy and impartiality in their news coverage. As far as book publishers, they would be either established mainstream publishing houses with a good reputations, or specialized publishers with an established track record of publishing books considered authoritative in the specific field. I often edit articles about mountaineering on Wikipedia, which is a niche sport. I have a very good idea of which journals are authoritative regarding mountaineering and which specialized publishers put out the best books on climbing. In my opinion, the sources cited here do not rise to the level of reliable sources by Wikipedia standards.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that Roller Derby Inside Track choose to cover MADE is what makes it notable. The content is essentially irrelevant given that there was a pre-decision to pick 7 associations and cover them. And pseudonyms? .. Roller Derby is all about pseudonyms. The contributors section, which does use pseudonyms, has complete write-ups about the authors. What more do you want aside from their real name? What would make this source reliable? Captain jim1 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source might be considered reliable if there was evidence of professional editorial control of this website, and might be considered independent if the information was presented by a professional journalist independent of MADE rather than by a MADE representative. Your statement that "the content is essentially irrelevant" indicates to me that you either don't understand or choose to disregard how we evaluate notability here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with a couple of those comments. The use of pseudonyms does not mean that a source is unreliable; it might make it harder to evaluate, but not in this case; as Captain jim1 says, it offers biographies of their contributors, explaining their relevant expertise. As an example, George Orwell's journalism could be a perfectly reliable source for something, even though it was a pseudonym. Secondly, as WP:Verifiability states, "the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." It does not state that works such as this with amateur editorial control cannot be reliable, just that professional editorial control is preferable. I do agree with your other points, on the failure of interviews to establish notability, particularly ones with a representative of the organisation, and on the key relevance of the content to the possibility of using it to establish notability. Warofdreams talk 12:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does the Leesburg 2Day article count for anything? The Wildwood 365 article is also independent and unbiased. Captain jim1 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The Leesburg Today "article" is a user-submitted event calendar listing with one sentence about MADE. It is therefore not a reliable source since it has no editorial oversight and the event listing is not independent. Wildwood 365 is a self-published blog issued by Al Alven and his friends that promotes a resort area, and the "article" in question is simply a reprint of a press release. It is therefore not a reliable source and the reprinted press release is not independent. Both may be worthy and useful ventures, but both are insufficient, in my opinion, to establish notability on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source List - comments per source please, but no need to rehash what's been said. The point is that MADE is relevant to derby and should keep their wiki page so people can use wikipedia for it's intended purpose. I will continue to add references here for simplicity's sake.

Captain jim1 (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are all primary sources or self-published sources. Even if some are secondary sources, they have weak or nonexistent editorial control (rendering them unreliable to support a claim of notability). As for any sources like the announcement in a local newspaper's "calendar" section - that's not even a passing mention - it's not "coverage" at all.
Nobody is contesting that this organization exists. But there are no references that support its claim to significance in any way. Neutralitytalk 05:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source issues: scan of an actual printed circular has one sentence that says sponsor. Being a sponsor does not convey notability. Coverage not enough to provide notability. Roller Derby Inside Track is an interview. Interviews do not provide notability. Loudoun Times Coverage has two sentences that talk about skater certification. Amount of coverage does not provide notability. Channel 9 CBS is an event listing. Event listings do not confer notability. Ashburn Patch Coverage only says they will use MADE rules. No substantial coverage of MADE. No authorship. Many contributors are not journalists but bloggers. Leesburg Patch Coverage is an event listing. Event listings do not convey notability. MADE is mentioned only for rules. No substantial MADE coverage. Wildwood 365 is not a reliable source for conveying notability as it is run by a resort. CCDE can be used as a source for MADE information but PDF does not help with WP:GNG because it is not an independent source. List of Associations to find teams is a mirror of www.derbyroster.com and thus is not acceptable for quantity related to WP:NOTE. DerbyRoster alone does not provide significant coverage. MADE mentions are largely secondary. No real information provided about the league, just who the members are. Would argue that it is not Independent of the subject in that leagues are encouraged to submit their own information, and nothing is provided to help determine editorial control. Vicious Circle Magazine appears to be a MADE run magazine, which means it is NOT an independent source. --LauraHale (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the largest co-ed which is the only traditional style of roller derby organization this is an extremely important entry. --User:65.242.105.66

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.
More