I think there are a lot of things that can be done, deletion not being one of them for the moment. First, make the obvious improvements. Second, contact the original author with a request for more information, sources, etc. If none come in the immediate future, I would opt to go with merging rather than deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I picked merge, but if nothing else is done, for gods sakes, fix the spelling errors. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 23:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Clean it up, tag for references, remove the last sentence and leave it as a stub. Someone will fix it eventually. And welcome the author, if noone else has. Neıl☎ 16:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Contact the author for references (if possible). Other than that I'd clean the article up and mark as unreferenced stub (until sources are provided). · AndonicOEngage. 18:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Establishing notability is key. Merging to other article is just cosmetic and ease-to-reader criteria which counts. If it's important enough to say at WP, merging decisions should be judged on whether it's easier to find or clearer to readers if in stand-alone form rather than as section in community article. So notability needs be established-thus notify originating author, explore and be open to sources, and AFD all the same time. AFD process does facilitate good article development. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would fix the spelling and tag it for notability and lack of citations, if there is already a tag, and there has been no changes, I would then tag it for deletion. Rds865 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup, tag, and if tag isn't resolvable, prod/AfD it. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. I think the test of notability for this article is whether reliable citations can be found for all the article's statements. If, after removing everything non-verifiable, nothing is left, then it's not a notable subject. COGDEN 05:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
More-or-less what AdonicO said, with the addition of revamping what appears to be a godawful PoV problem; I might solicit help with that part. However, if I didn't so much as a sniff of a source, I'd put it up for deletion rather than merging, as it appears to be as much an attempt to troll for sympathy against the handicapped as a historical footnote. --Duneflower, resident weirdo (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Stub it, add fact tags, put it on my watch list, and add a short friendly note to the author (especially if he's a newbie) telling him that it needs reliable references or it will be deleted. Point him to WP:V and WP:RS. Wait a few weeks - if nothing changes, merge or AfD. This gives the author a chance to learn how to contribute encyclopedic content, without having to "go into battle" in a deletion debate right away. In the meantime, Wikipedia may have a non-notable stub for a few weeks, a small price to pay for a drama-free solution. ATren (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Trishm (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) cleanup, tag, contact author, prod/afd if nothing happens.
