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 Speedy Delete under CSD:G12 ( non-admin closure) - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions}) 03:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Happy Ending (2016 Nigerian Film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, and WP:NFO. A google search of the film doesn't show the film being discussed in reliable sources. The single reference cited in the article is a press release. Moreover, all of the sources online are press releases.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete under CSD:G12 as a copyvio of [1]. - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:28, 24 January 2017 (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.

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 to Speedy Delete under CSD:G12 ( non-admin closure) - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions}) 03:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)}} reply

Locked up (2016 Nigerian Film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, and WP:NFO. A google search of the film doesn't show the film being discussed in reliable sources. The single reference cited in the article is a press release.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per G12 as a copyvio of [2]. - KAP03( ^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:16, 24 January 2017 (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.

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 as sufficient consensus (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Kautilya Govt. Sarvodya Bal Vidyalaya (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL currently, unclear how it ever could. South Nashua ( talk) 22:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Existence confirmed on Delhi government website. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep we keep articles on secondary schools. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:29, 26 January 2017 (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.

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.  Sandstein  12:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Executive Order 13765 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page just copies the text of the order without providing sources as to notability Kndimov ( talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Why not just move it to Wikisource like we did with just about every other Executive Order (see List of United States federal executive orders 13489—13764)? -- Kndimov ( talk) 04:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Executive orders by the President of the United States are notable. This looks like a case for cleanup, not deletion. South Nashua ( talk) 22:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ South Nashua: Are you saying that every executive order should get an article? Clearly some are important ( Executive Order 9066), but every one? Most are very mundane and get little coverage. This one is little more than a statement of principle. 331dot ( talk) 03:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I'd say so. Executive orders are a key part of a President's duties. At minimum, redirects for each executive order going to a page on a specific topic relating to executive orders in a particular administration. South Nashua ( talk) 03:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: WP:SOFIXIT. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Just gave it a quick rewrite. Let's avoid a snow and speedy close this one. South Nashua ( talk) 22:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Why not just move it to Wikisource like we did with just about every other Executive Order (see List of United States federal executive orders 13489—13764)? Plus it's sill not notable. I fail to see the impact, unlike his order to withdraw from the TPP. All the article says is that the order is: "Designed to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as 'Obamacare'". An executive order cannot repeal the Affordable Care Act. If you actually read it, all it says it "please slow down implementation of Obamacare, despite the fact it has already been implemented". The rest appears to be just rhetoric designed to show the new president's resolve. -- Kndimov ( talk) 23:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Even if some executive orders are not notable, which I don't agree with, this one in particular is the culmination of a talking point during the presidential campaign he repeated numerous times. Plenty of room for expansion beyond the verbatim words of the order itself. South Nashua ( talk) 15:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Totally notable. Reliable sources. Article might need little cleanup and edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izukiviktor ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Who says a simple executive order is independently notable? It's WP:NOTNEWS. This is sufficiently covered by First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 02:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep because it's almost impossible for this to not have coverage from multiple independent sources: Considering the broad scope of this executive order — probably an attempt to reverse Obamacare to the maximum extent allowed by executive branch — I'm pretty sure multiple sources can be found soon, analyzing what this executive order's effect is, and how it affects healthcare in the United States until more complete acts of Congress are passed, and possibly also how it sets the tone for the Trump administration. -- Closeapple ( talk) 02:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Move the text of the order to Wikisource; anything remaining can be merged with Donald Trump's first 100 days article, or an article about efforts to repeal the ACA. This order is little more than a statement of principle. 331dot ( talk) 03:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - We have plenty of articles dedicated to EOs, and this is Trump's first, so clearly there is significance. Bkwillwm ( talk) 05:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources about the executive order. This is part of a rather broad structure of Category:United States executive orders by president, which includes several dozen such articles. Alansohn ( talk) 15:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. loads of news sources discuss it. If the article is more than just the text of the order, if it also includes historical context and effects, etc., that's a legitimate subject for an article. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 16:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

The substance of this order is essentially that it is a step towards repealing the ACA; I'm not sure what historical context it has, but I would think that it could be discussed as part of the ACA article, or an article detailing efforts to repeal it. 331dot ( talk) 17:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Either list them all, or none of them. Some being more important than others is subjective and only having articles for a few is inconsistent. I like how the past two terms from Obama lists them all at Wikisource per Kndimov. -- Charitwo ^{( talk) ( contribs)} 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete All Trump's executive orders will be listed in List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above. The article has an external link leading to the text, so there's no need for separate articles if those articles only present the content of the order. In this case I think the executive order should be discussed in the article about ACA or in a separate article about the repeal of ACA. Sjö ( talk) 10:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ( t)  Josve05a ( c) 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ( t)  Josve05a ( c) 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ( t)  Josve05a ( c) 01:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ( t)  Josve05a ( c) 01:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. This article definitely needs expansion, but the executive order has received coverage from The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post, among others. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 01:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. The objections of several here could be dealt with by improving the article. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Whatever replaces Obamacare will have an article. This executive order is a single step towards that replacement and by itself is insignificant. Maybe there could be an article 2017 Obamacare repealment effort if you find yourself unable to wait. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) ^[1] 05:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  If and when that subject gets beyond this executive order, it may be plausible that the executive order is no longer separately notable from that subject and can be merged. But right now, all there is to the actual Obamacare changes in the current term is this. Efforts to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exist, but the only effort that has actually has the force of law so far is this executive order. -- Closeapple ( talk) 11:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  I'll change my comment to Merge into Efforts to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act then. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) ^[1] 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep, executive orders are not inherently notable (nor are they usually), but this one seems to pass GNG. ansh 666 21:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep. Executive orders pass the GNG. 'Nuff said. Completely improper nomination given the general tendency to have individual articles for every individual EO, and that's well before we get into the fact that this one in particular recieved a boatload of media coverage which is cited in the article already. Karunamon ^✉ 02:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  I think you need to look again. Every single one of those wikilinks links to the corresponding WikiSource page. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) ^[1] 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  Aha, actually I'm a little wrong. That page has a few links to Obama's EOs under the "Title/Description" column. There are around 12 EO articles in Category:Executive_orders_of_Barack_Obama. I wouldn't say 12 out of 275 is a "general tendency" at all. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) ^[1] 03:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not every presidential executive order needs its own page. This one, the content can be easily assimilated into the first 100 days and PPACA page. Compare and contrast with the newsworthiness of the executive order on Muslim travel and refugees. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 04:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above, passes WP:GNG, content can be added into other relevant articles, but there's no reason why we should not also have a separate article. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete – We don't need a separate article for every paper the President signs. There's a list for this, and subject matter is covered elsewhere, for example at Obamacare and First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. — JFG ^talk 09:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete / Merge to List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above AusLondonder ( talk) 09:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge, ideally to Shit Donald Trump Says. Guy ( Help!) 15:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Seriously? For a guy who is apparently an administrator, that was kind of unprofessional. We are trying to have a serious discussion here, thank you. -- Kndimov ( talk) 17:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Pretty much, yes. One article on the endless series of fuckwittedness emanating from the White House is enough right now. Guy ( Help!) 22:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This particular Executive Order has been critiqued by numerous reliable sources, seen on these Google News articles: [3] Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As above. The article now references three news sources discussing the order, demonstrating notability. I can see why it was nominated, but in its current form it's downright confusing to have a deletion nomination on it. - NorsemanII ( talk) 21:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Merge to List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 02:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Independently notable. — RockMFR 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Executive orders by the President of the United States are notable. It needs cleaned up more. - Kiraroshi1976 ( talk) 06:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep clearly meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, of course. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - improper use of WP article delete procedure. This process is for identifying topics that *should not* be articles in WP. It is not meant for poorly written articles, which should be listed at WP:CLEANUP, not here. Davodd ( talk) 06:07, 31 January 2017 (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.

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. czar 08:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Resonance Extra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable radio station, Fails RADIO & GNG – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is a classic example of WP:COI editing and it seems that the articles creator, Decodicil, is using an WP:SPA account. I am further troubled by the lack of references in this article. If anything, the article could be merged into London Musicians Collective due to the affiliation. It might help if Decodicil offers some sources while its deletion is being discussed per WP:BURDEN. Eliko007 ( talk) 22:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails [WP:GNG]]. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527 ^Talk 03:49, 26 January 2017 (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.

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. czar 08:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Moonfall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cant find any third party references mentioning this at all. Some mention of a film of the same name, and a gaming company of the same name, but no mention of this game except in self published or primary sources.   Insert CleverPhrase Here  20:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The "video game's" existence cannot be confirmed. Meatsgains ( talk) 21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer ( talk) 18:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic has no significant coverage from reliable independent sources. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 20:04, 25 January 2017 (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.

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.  Sandstein  12:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

The Friedmann-Balayla Model (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article based on a concept described in a single Journal paper (that has not been cited by any others). References within this article, apart from the reference pointing directly to the paper, do not mention "The Friedmann-Balayla Model" and in fact, they pre-date the publication of the Journal paper by many years. The GNG is definitely not met. (Note - improvement tags have been removed repeatedly and a PROD based on notability was declined by the page author) Exemplo347 ( talk) 19:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

This is a rigorous scientific and epidemiological paper, published in a scientific, peer-reviewed medical journal. The model is new and innovative, and addresses a concern that is raised by years of medical literature. It is an important addition to the zeitgeist, and it should be commended as such Tedmfm.

Nothing that you have said addresses the concerns that I have raised, both here at this discussion and on the talk page of the article. Please can you respond to my specific concerns, because they are related to Wikipedia's policies. Exemplo347 ( talk) 20:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

It is a new paper precisely because there was a need for the concept herein developed. As a consequence, all the references will be from the past, and won't cite the model. The fact it hasn't been cited has to do with it being so new. Similarly, the fact it is peer-reviewed means it has undergone strict and rigorous scientific scrutiny from the community, and it is NOT self-published. - Tedmfm. —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

"Self Published" means exactly that - the journal paper was written by the people who came up with this scientific model, so that's a self-published source. It doesn't fulfil the requirement under the General Notability Guideline that I've already suggested that you read, but I don't think you have. Specifically, the GNG calls for Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Exemplo347 ( talk) 20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't think your definition of "self-published" is correct. Self-publishing means you publish your own article by yourself. i.e without an independent editorial house, scientific journal, rigurous peer-review. In that case, the findings have no reliability and questioned validity. The Friedmann-Balayla model is different. While you are correct that the eponym comes from the authors who submitted the article, the peer review gives credence to the findings, which now make part of the medical literature. I have read the GNG and do not believe this article is in violation of the guidelines on the topics you have brought forth - Tedmfm —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Oh dear - Independent Reliable Sources (plural) Exemplo347 ( talk) 21:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 ( talk) 09:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - An academic paper was published in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine on 23 January 2017, the same day this article was created. While an article has been published in a peer-review journal, there has not yet been any review of this work that has been undertaken of this paper by other authors, such as asked for by WP:MEDRS. So there is nothing presented to suggest this theory itself is notable at this point. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 19:42, 29 January 2017 (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.

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT. The nominator is now proposing simply "reducing the article to a stub." While I agree with more experienced editors that a better way forward might be to reference what we have rather than cut it back -- any such improvements don't require an Afd and we're looking at a WP:SNOWy keep. Further discussions should take place on the article talk page. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Chemical compound (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has very little value because of its very small amount of sources and should be deleted so a better article can be made on a clean slate. Iamaplayer33 ( talk) 19:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Informative article on important concept. Ridiculous nomination. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC). reply
  • Although the lead and definions sections have some value, all the other sections have no sources. Maybe only the offending sections could be deleted, reducing the article to a stub. Iamaplayer33 ( talk) 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Delete is not the answer as we clearly need an article with this title. I hope the WP:CHEMISTRY can work on it. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Notable and reasonably written. Should be improved, not destroyed.-- Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 01:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This article dates to the early days of Wikipedia. At that time it was felt to be not necessary to provide references for material that was well-known enough to be in textbooks. Many, many science and math articles have few references even today for that reason. Deleting them and starting over is not a good solution. Even mass labeling of sections as having no sources is not a good idea. Put a single tag at the top, look at some textbooks, and provide sources. StarryGrandma ( talk) 04:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

As there is now a HUGE tag atop the article declaring this problem for all to see, I've removed all the subsequent sourcing tags per WP:TAGBOMB. I've left the tag that claims there is a factual accuracy issue in one particular section, though. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep the solution is not to delete it, the solution is to add references. Having recently brought ionic compound up from a state like this, and now nominated it for Good Article, I have experience in this area. Referencing such simple stuff is sometimes tedious and dull, but it is never difficult to find a source. Iamaplayer33, you seem new around here. I suggest having a go at finding a source for some of these statements. Grab a General Chemistry textbook, and pitch in. If you need help, you're welcome to contact me or WikiProject Chemistry. -- 99of9 ( talk) 05:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a fundamental article in the field of chemistry and there are already more than enough sources to establish notability. If it needs more sources, add them. Alansohn ( talk) 16:01, 24 January 2017 (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.

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 Redirect Sufficient consensus (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Exploris Middle School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propose that this redirect to Wake County, North Carolina be restored as this is a middle school with no clear claim to notability. Jacona ( talk) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - no standalone notability. Glendoremus ( talk) 06:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Dan Koehl ( talk) 18:59, 24 January 2017 (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.

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 no consensus. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Laurina Fleure (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable reality show contestant. She appeared in a season of The Bachelor Australia and subsequently in I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here but doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER in my eyes. She didn't win either program, and hasn't done anything else of particular merit that warrants an article. -- Whats new? ^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new? ^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new? ^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new? ^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep (as article creator): the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 as having a significant role in two different shows. She came third in Celebrity while in the Bachelor she was (according to the Daily Mail) "" one of the most popular contestants" She has more than 1000 hits on GNews, and even if most of them are tabloids it still indicates a significant impact well above that of the average reality show contestant. St Anselm ( talk) 05:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • How were they 'significant' roles? Why is she more notable than the winner or any other contestant in her season of The Bachelor, none of whom have articles. The depth of coverage about her is mostly trivial and almost exclusively related to events in either program. -- Whats new? ^(talk) 06:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Reluctant keep, or perhaps redirect to either The Bachelor Australia or I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here. The article as it stands only has one secondary source, so delete, but yes there is heaps of guff about her. So however meets GNG WP:NEXIST it seems just because she is a very little bit famous for being a very little bit famous. Her show appearances do not need to get her over the line. GNG does not need to have any remarkable events or achievements, just IRS to demonstrate notability and verifiability, and able to support a reasonably comprehensive article. I suggest the article creator turns the article into an in-depth multiply referenced article asap. As it stands the article's content does not demonstrate any notability. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I added some guff. St Anselm ( talk) 20:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry but I suggest you aim to have a few multi-sentence paragraphs in each of sections such as Early life and education, and Adult [personal] life, and Film and media, and Fashion industry, etc. These if all referenced by reliable secondary sources (and not for example any social media, or self publish, or personal blogs, might win you the day). Aoziwe ( talk) 11:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Well, I think you misunderstand what AfD is all about - sources generally only have to exist, not be in the article. AfD is not for cleanup. St Anselm ( talk) 20:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Completely agree. But the author was active so why not have them get "their" ((not) OWN) article up to scratch and make it easier to keep? AfD is not about cleanup but it sure can be an incentive for (other) interested editors to get to work on an article. No harm in that surely? Aoziwe ( talk) 12:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Adding "guff" turns this into nothing more than WP:PSEUDO. -- Whats new? ^(talk) 22:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Agreed. The guff does need to be selected as balanced, reliable, and secondary of course. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete; one of those people famous for being famous. A Google search at first seems to pick up loads of coverage, but when you look into it I'm not sure that much of it is reliable; mainly gossip magazines and the celebrity inserts in newspapers, neither of which I think meet WP:RS. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 03:25, 22 January 2017 (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.

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 no consensus. Kurykh ( talk) 23:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Canadian Voices (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deconstructing Dinner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Two poorly sourced articles about radio programs produced by a single community radio station. While both programs are claimed to have been syndicated to various other radio stations in Canada, and thus would pass WP:NMEDIA if they could be reliably sourced as such, all of the sourcing shown here is to the programs' own self-published content about themselves, with no evidence of independent media coverage shown at all. Bearcat ( talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep, both need more sources but both seem quite notable for their guests, topics, and format. Canadian Voices, a non-profit show, was broadcast and seemingly syndicated across 37 college radio stations in Canada and one in the US, so it's not a local program but a national show. The Deconstructing Dinner article is about an internationally syndicated prominent show, program, and other topic areas which have been host to many extremely prominent food safety advocates, and seems a one-of-a-kind topic which for many reasons is notable. Randy Kryn 16:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Notability, for Wikipedia's purposes, is entirely a factor of whether the topic can be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to pass WP:GNG — there's nothing that an article can claim about its topic that gets it included in Wikipedia, if it's just asserted without proper referencing for it. But I've done the necessary searches, in more than one place, and found that the depth and breadth of coverage needed to get the articles referenced properly simply isn't out there — Deconstructing Dinner gets namechecked a couple of times in articles about other things, but there's no substantive coverage about it on either Google or ProQuest, and Canadian Voices gets even less than that. There's simply none of the kind of media coverage it takes, and a radio show does not get a Wikipedia article just by having a self-published website about itself. Bearcat ( talk) 17:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete neither the sources now on the page, nor those I can find support notability. Creator should read WP:RS. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment above was about Canadian Voices. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Don't know if editors know there are two pages listed here. Both needs sources but are notable per the page, and both, as well as a third page up for deletion, seem to be the only progressive radio programs in Canada, which may explain their lack of cites. Deconstructing Dinner's page, for example, includes "It is one of the only sources of media in Canada and the U.S. solely dedicated to investigating the origins and impacts of food choices and sharing the stories of people and communities who are constructing food systems abroad." Canadian Voices and the other page are similarly unique in their subject matter. All three pages should be relisted again and notices given to other appropriate Wikipedia projects besides the two listed. Randy Kryn 14:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Notability on Wikipedia is entirely a matter of whether the article is properly sourceable or not. There is no way for a topic to be notable enough for an article in the absence of enough reliable sourcing about that topic to carry the notability — because notability is inherently a measure of sourceability. It's not a measure of whether any individual user does or doesn't care about the topic, or of how "unique" the topic claims to be — it's a measure of the degree to which the topic is or is not the subject of reliable source coverage in media, and if that simply doesn't exist then the article simply does not get to be kept regardless of what type of significance or uniqueness its own self-published content about itself claims that it has. Bearcat ( talk) 20:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Randy Kryn. There is adequate if not tons of source material, the program appears to be well-distributed and the guests who appear are notable entities. I would concur that more projects should be noted, particularly WikiProject British Columbia. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Where is there "adequate source material", exactly, given that there's no reliable sourcing locatable about either show on either Google News or ProQuest? You can't just assert that adequate sources exist, if no adequate sources have been shown to exist. Bearcat ( talk) 17:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment – Note that a total of two articles are nominated for deletion herein, but the last two !votes only appear to be addressing the Canadian Voices article listed atop the nomination, per the singular nouns used in the prose (e.g. "neither the sources now on the page...", "the program appears to be ...") (italic emphasis mine). North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Deconstructing Dinner. Sources: I ran a proquest search, which turned up a 2008 article in the Mission City Record of Mission City, British Columbia, promoting a cross-Canada bicycle ride by the program's two hosts undertaken to The two co-producers are quoted saying that Deconstructing Dinner began on "January 2006 at Kootenay Co-op Radio CJLY in Nelson." (that's Nelson, British Columbia). Also, in 2004, the Nanaimo News Bulletin in Nanimo, British Columbia ran an announcement about this as a new program. So, all of this is uber local. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note that "Deconstructing Dinner" was a phrase that had some currency at the time, so searches turn up hits to articles with this title tha thave nothing to do with this program. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• However, in 2009 the Moncton, New Brunswick Times & Transcript ran a story entitled "The future of local food: deconstructing dinner" which is partly focused on this program, and interviews one of the program's co-producers. Here's that text: " Leading the presentation and discussion at the Dieppe Market will be Jon Steinman from Nelson, B.C. His remarkable radio program entitled "Deconstructing Dinner" serves as a sounding board for his belief that "food deserves far more attention than it currently receives and that we owe it to this planet and each other to fully understand the implications of our food choices." His broadcasts bring together farmers, journalists and researchers who "deconstruct the issues" to provide deeper context to consumers across the country. Those of you with an internet connection can access past programs at any time via podcasts. A podcast is simply a file found at a website that can be opened by your computer to play an audio recording. In other words, radio when you want it. A wide ranging list of food related topics is covered by this unique program that is heard on 34 radio stations." The article is a feature, not by one of paper's journalists, but by a writer described as "a founding member of Post Carbon Greater Moncton, President of the Riverview Environmental Strategies Committee, and writes a column called Energy Matters for the Saint John Telegraph Journal." Here: [4]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect Deconstruciton Dinner to CJLY-FM. In addition to the above, there were a number of stories about this program in small publications in British Columbia. Another paper in Moncton listed the talk he gave there, and at least one paper in another province took note of the fund-raising bike ride. It may be that sources exist elsewhere (I stopped with after the Proquest news archive search detialed above) but I did not see enough to persuade me that this passes WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:04, 31 January 2017 (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.

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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Veterans Songs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album from a band who's page has just been deleted. Evking22 ( talk) 05:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Note for the closing admin: The nominator has withdrawn the nomination. See below. Lourdes 03:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment AFD for the band was here. There is not much coverage of this album online, however it has been nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album in 2001 (src: 1, 2, 3, 4). Technically the album passes WP:NALBUM in point 4 for notability. The same argumentation could have been made for band itself too. Dead Mary ( talk) 18:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete While perhaps in technical compliance with WP:NMUSIC#4, that merely creates a presumption that there is likely to be notability. In this case, there simply isn't any apparent evidence, in the article or in searches, of any significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: My normal view is to recommend a merge to the band article, but the band article was deleted (which, I think is questionable, and I might have it userfied to work on it, actually). No !vote, as my solution is currently moot. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Not only was it nominated for the Grammy, it won the Best Historical Recording award at the Native American Music Awards. [5] Here's some more coverage on the album. [6] In my opinion, these are the cases why NMUSIC has been made. NMUSIC points to the probability of general notability coverage existing or coming up in the future. For example, Veterans has been covered significantly by University and college magazines [7] [8], has featured in the listings of multiple books, encyclopedias and Billboard publications. [9] [10] [11] Of course, while the university publications are significant coverage, they don't perhaps qualify pristinely on our reliable source requirements, and while publications like Billboard magazine are reliable, the mention is just in a listing. I would suggest giving this article some more time. Veterans qualifies on NMUSIC and we should appropriately support the existence of such cultural benchmarks for a part of our less represented population. Lourdes 03:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Pinging Evking22 to enquire if they'll consider withdrawing the Afd nomination. Thanks. Lourdes 03:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: I'm now seeing that this band's album could be worked on a bit. The band itself could be added back again if we have the proper sources to identify it as being notable. I officially withdraw my nomination for deletion. Evking22 ( talk) 03:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the gracious move. Lourdes 03:41, 1 February 2017 (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.

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. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Cory Lingner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this performer is up to the level of notability called for under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. There is a little bit of focused coverage in possibly suitable sources, such as [12], but that's a hometown local weekly), and [13], but that article "originally appeared in" the same hometown weekly. What coverage there is, is in connection with a single off-Broadway role for which he was nominated for, but didn't win, one award (though that's the main reason why I didn't submit for speedy deletion under A7); and, more recently, he's Ensemble and understudy. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Largoplazo ( talk) 17:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Most significant coverage is hometown coverage of his parents. Credits are all of "ensemble" or "understudy" level. Remaining sources are to bare database listings or not really about this performer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete Since the two articles linked by Largoplazo are by the same author and from the same publication, they count as one source under the GNG. I couldn't find any other articles to count as a good second source. There are two articles from TheaterMania, which is probably a reliable source, but they are so short and contain so little info on Lingner that I think they fall just short of the GNG level of significant coverage. And he fails WP:ENT since his Broadway roles have all been ensemble or understudy. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 22:53, 29 January 2017 (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.

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. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 04:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Megha Rawat Arup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E: Winner of Mrs. India 2013 fails to satisfy WP:NMODEL. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Mrs. India is a not a notable title. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• KeepMrs.India is a national pageant for married women just like Miss India is for unmarried girls.Winner of Mrs.India represents India in international pageants like Mrs.World ,Mrs.Asia,Mrs.International etc.Winner of Mrs.India need not be models but they are role models & accomplished women from India who are successful in their own areas because they set an example of following their dreams by balancing both personal & professional lives & fighting the so called patriarchal system in India where women are only expected to stay home ,cook & raise children after marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcp123* ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: Mcp123* ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@ Mcp123*: Same as John Pack Lambert said above Mrs. India is a not a notable title and the subject is notable only for one event. GSS ( talk| c| em) 15:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as clear advertising alone and the history here confirms it. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 27 January 2017 (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.

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. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Samuel Chukwueze (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played Nigeria's youth national teams. However, WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 17:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 20:48, 27 January 2017 (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.

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. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Jack Ipalibo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played Nigeria's youth national teams. However, WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture and does not have enough significant independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack ( talk) 17:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 17:00, 25 January 2017 (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.

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 WP:BOLD redirect by nominator to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 6)#ep142. ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

To Where and Back Again (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article relies heavily on unverifiable third-party sources such as blogs and fan posts, and lacks any significant coverage from verifiable sources to warrant the page's creation. User:SubZeroSilver ( talk) 17:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 23. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:30, 23 January 2017 (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.

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. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Cindy Callaghan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely WP:PROMO article. 2 editors have been adding promotional content that is copied and pasted from other sources. Even with this material deleted page is purely promotional and author is not notable. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does look like WP:PROMO and a GNG failure. South Nashua ( talk) 23:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable writer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Kansiime (chat) 00:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment, a gsearch for reviews brings up plenty, but most of them are not useable, but thank goodness for the US library system:), that shows reviews of Just Add Magic, Lost in London, Lucky Me, Lost in Paris, Lost in Rome (they may be "trade reviews" but still okay for WP:RS), and Just Add Magic appears pretty popular ie. 16 copies, none available, also kirkus has reviewed Sydney Machenzie Knocks 'Em Dead (yes i know some editors aren't comfortable with recent kirk reviews, but this one is critical - "A deeply flawed story of hidden history literally buried within a small white town."), but there is only really one review for each title so more are needed. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:13, 26 January 2017 (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.

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. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Phoenix Cobras (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is one of three articles for this franchise, which also includes the Empire State Cobras and the Buffalo Wings. There are more than enough sources available for the franchise to establish notability. Alansohn ( talk) 16:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I read the above !votes before I looked at this and I fully expected that I would find this one to be a rare keep among the Roller Hockey articles up for deletion but what I found, or rather didn't find, makes me wonder how anybody thinks this is close to being notable.
  Of the two Google News hits, one of which is for the "The 50 creepiest hockey logos of all-time (Ranking 50-26)". There are zero Google Newspapers hits. (Yes, I counted twice.) Where is the verifiability here? Was this really a professional sports team? Did nobody bother to tell their local newspapers? Two of the 6 Google Books hits are people republishing Wikipedia articles and the others look like passing mentions.
  In a world where even the most minor sports news is published and devoured this team seems not to have made a ripple in the media. How can a professional sports team make money (which is what "professional" implies) if the world has never even heard of them? I see no scope that a proper referenced article could ever be made for this subject as the sources do not seem to exist. The bar is "significant coverage in reliable sources". I don't see how that can be met. I do see some justification in those arguing that the nomination should have been researched better but keeping a truly hopeless article to prove that point does not seem justifiable. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:48, 25 January 2017 (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.

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. Per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 08:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Tampa Bay Tritons (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep A notable team that played in a notable professional sport at the peak of its popularity. Ample sources are available to establish notability; sadly the nominator refuses to follow the obligations of WP:BEFORE. Alansohn ( talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orlando Jackals
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connecticut Coasters
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los Angeles Blades
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empire State Cobras
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Blue Ox
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St. Louis Vipers
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San Diego Barracudas
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long Island Jawz
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Las Vegas Flash
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa Wheels
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philadelphia Bulldogs
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montreal Roadrunners
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roller Hockey International

-- do ncr am 17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Trackinfo ( talk) 02:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• The weakest keep possible. Nothing in Google News but the one source on the article, coupled with the mentions in the Tampa Bay Magazine found under the Google Books search are enough to make it a valid stub if the unreferenced and over-detailed cruft is removed, so I have removed it. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:38, 25 January 2017 (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.

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. Per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 08:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

St. Louis Vipers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced (for over 8 years). Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional team in the highest level league of roller hockey at a time when roller hockey was hugely popular and had games in primetime on ESPN. Notability is not temporary. Secondly this article like most of the others were not all created by one editor. The nom hasn't even done the slightest check on the article's notability, to the point where he claims one person created it when it was a completely different user. Op seems to be on a one man war to wipe out all of roller hockey from the wiki. - DJSasso ( talk) 18:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orlando Jackals
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connecticut Coasters
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los Angeles Blades
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empire State Cobras
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Blue Ox
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St. Louis Vipers
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San Diego Barracudas
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long Island Jawz
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Las Vegas Flash
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa Wheels
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philadelphia Bulldogs
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montreal Roadrunners
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roller Hockey International

-- do ncr am 17:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Trackinfo ( talk) 02:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Professional sports team meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:02, 26 January 2017 (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.

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. Per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 08:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

San Diego Barracudas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. Also stop misinforming everyone that these articles were all created by one user as it was not. - DJSasso ( talk) 18:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional sports teams are generally notable. Also, as Djsasso said, these articles were not all created by one user. The nominator should remember to assume good faith and not throw out incorrect accusations. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orlando Jackals
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connecticut Coasters
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los Angeles Blades
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empire State Cobras
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Blue Ox
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St. Louis Vipers
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San Diego Barracudas
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long Island Jawz
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Las Vegas Flash
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa Wheels
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philadelphia Bulldogs
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montreal Roadrunners
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roller Hockey International

-- do ncr am 17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Trackinfo ( talk) 02:03, 25 January 2017 (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.

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. Per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 08:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Philadelphia Bulldogs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's a Professional sports team, the before deletion policy was not seen through. Not convinced this article can't just be improved, instead of being deleted.-- Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 01:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep and Trout Slap It is truly disturbing to see what one editor with an axe to grind can do to destroy encyclopedic content. Every one of the articles that I have looked at as part of this March to the Sea of AfDs was sourced with minimal effort; this one was no exception. User:Zackmann08 has utterly failed to meet the obligations imposed under WP:BEFORE to "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". This and other such articles should be kept (at a minimum, on a procedural basis), and efforts should be made to find the world's largest trout for slapping purposes. Alansohn ( talk) 04:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orlando Jackals
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connecticut Coasters
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los Angeles Blades
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empire State Cobras
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Blue Ox
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St. Louis Vipers
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San Diego Barracudas
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long Island Jawz
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Las Vegas Flash
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa Wheels
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philadelphia Bulldogs
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montreal Roadrunners
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roller Hockey International

-- do ncr am 17:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This one seems adequately referenced but most of the others are not. Please do not blanket !vote Keep on all the others just to prove a point, even if that point has some merit. Many of them would only need to be AfDed again with a better nomination and we all have better things to do than think about roller hockey twice in our short lives. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Professional sports team meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:58, 26 January 2017 (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.

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. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 08:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orlando Jackals
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connecticut Coasters
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los Angeles Blades
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empire State Cobras
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Blue Ox
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St. Louis Vipers
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San Diego Barracudas
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long Island Jawz
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Las Vegas Flash
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa Wheels
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philadelphia Bulldogs
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montreal Roadrunners
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roller Hockey International

-- do ncr am 17:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's a Professional sports team, the before deletion policy was not seen through. Not convinced this article can't just be improved, instead of being deleted.-- Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Trackinfo ( talk) 02:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Neutral Not easy to research this one as it is by very far not the most famous team with this name. (This is why you should never call your dog Elvis if you want him to be famous.) I found a couple of very weak sources that are enough to stop me !voting Delete but I didn't find any more to persuade me it could be even a weak keep but I didn't look very hard as, tbh, after looking at so many of these damn things I never want to hear of bloody roller hockey ever again. ;-) -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:18, 25 January 2017 (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.

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. Per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 09:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Oakland Skates (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced (for over 7 years). Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional team playing in the top league at the height of roller hockey when it was playing games on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. Clearly notable. Secondly WP:SPORTCRIT is for players not leagues and teams and says so right on it. Thirdly this article was not created by that "one" user that you keep claiming on all these noms. Nom seems to be on a crusade to remove roller hockey from the wiki completely nominating many clearly notable articles for deletion without even doing an ounce of WP:BEFORE checks. - DJSasso ( talk) 18:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep It took me a few minutes, but there were ample sources available about the team, which have been added to the article; with a bit more time (and patience) I could probably find and add dozens more. As with all of the other nominations cited above, nomination of this article for deletion utterly fails WP:BEFORE, a fundamental obligation that must be met before moving forward with an AfD. Sadly, Zackmann08 has ignored all of the issues raised at these AfDs, refused to withdraw nominations where articles have been improved to add easily located sources and has simply moved on to destroy other encyclopedic content at XfD, without having learned any lessons from these previous failures to observe policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn ( talk • contribs)
• Strong Keep Ridiculous!! Nominated hasn't done any research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 January 2017 (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.

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. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

New England Stingers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Only Google News hit is Wikipedia itself. Google Newspapers finds nothing and offers up other things called "stingers" by way of apology. Enough passing mentions in Google Books to prove the team existed but nothing that shows notability. I see nothing that could be used to build up a properly referenced article on this subject. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:05, 25 January 2017 (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.

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. Per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 09:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

New Jersey Rockin Rollers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep I remembered when the team was created at the peak of hype in roller hockey and it took me just a few minutes to expand the article with some of the dozens upon dozens of sources about the team available from The New York Times. The team was active more than two decades ago and I'm sure that if I dug a bit deeper I'd be able to find, and add to the article, another couple of dozen sources. But just as easily as I found the sources, the nominator -- who seems to have prejudged the entire sport -- could have and would have found those same references. This is a complete and total failure by the nominator to meet the obligations of WP:BEFORE and to make a legitimate effort to preserve encyclopedic content. Alansohn ( talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep While I've generally been skeptical that many of these teams meet WP:ORG, the two most significant added cites from the NYT -- a single media outlet, to be sure, but a journal of record -- shows to me that this one is close enough to meeting GNG. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I'd like to see sources from more than one publication but the NYT is enough to keep it. Unlike most of the others up for deletion there is actually some content here worth saving. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Professional sports team meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:08, 26 January 2017 (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.

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. Per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 08:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Connecticut Coasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• These all seem similar:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orlando Jackals
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connecticut Coasters
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los Angeles Blades
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empire State Cobras
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Blue Ox
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St. Louis Vipers
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San Diego Barracudas
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long Island Jawz
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Las Vegas Flash
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa Wheels
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philadelphia Bulldogs
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montreal Roadrunners
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roller Hockey International

-- do ncr am 17:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- do ncr am 17:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Trackinfo ( talk) 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep It took me a few minutes, but there were ample sources available about the team, including this lengthy article in The New York Times. As with all of the other nominations cited above, nomination of this article for deletion utterly fails WP:BEFORE, a fundamental obligation that must be met before moving forward with an AfD. Sadly, Zackmann08 has ignored all of the issues raised at these AfDs, refused to withdraw nominations where articles have been improved to add easily located sources and has simply moved on to destroy other encyclopedic content at XfD, without having learned any lessons from these previous failures to observe policy. Alansohn ( talk) 15:29, 26 January 2017 (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.

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. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Empire State Cobras (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• These all seem similar:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orlando Jackals
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connecticut Coasters
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los Angeles Blades
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empire State Cobras
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Blue Ox
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St. Louis Vipers
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San Diego Barracudas
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long Island Jawz
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Las Vegas Flash
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa Wheels
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philadelphia Bulldogs
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montreal Roadrunners
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roller Hockey International

-- do ncr am 17:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Am unable to find any Rs whatsoever for Empire State Cobras: fails WP:ORG. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] all show sources. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • One and two are good, I'd say. The rest are either non-RS or passing mentions. I think there are some notable teams that meet ORG. Not convinced this one, based in tiny Glens Falls, is one of them. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is one of three articles for this franchise, which also includes the Phoenix Cobras and the Buffalo Wings. There are more than enough sources available for the franchise to establish notability. Alansohn ( talk) 16:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- do ncr am 17:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. As stated by User:Alansohn, there are multiple facets to this particular franchise. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Trackinfo ( talk) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Neutral. There are some sources available but they are very, very, thin stuff. Could this ever be more than a stub? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Notable and totally meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT ridiculous mistake by nominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 January 2017 (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.

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. Per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 08:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Las Vegas Flash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orlando Jackals
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connecticut Coasters
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los Angeles Blades
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empire State Cobras
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Blue Ox
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St. Louis Vipers
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San Diego Barracudas
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long Island Jawz
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Las Vegas Flash
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa Wheels
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philadelphia Bulldogs
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montreal Roadrunners
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roller Hockey International

-- do ncr am 17:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Trackinfo ( talk) 02:04, 25 January 2017 (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.

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. Per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 08:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Long Island Jawz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Everything about nomination is wrong. WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, professional sports teams are notable, and pages were not all created by the same user. Stop wasting everybody's time. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orlando Jackals
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connecticut Coasters
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los Angeles Blades
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empire State Cobras
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Blue Ox
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St. Louis Vipers
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San Diego Barracudas
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long Island Jawz
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Las Vegas Flash
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa Wheels
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philadelphia Bulldogs
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montreal Roadrunners
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roller Hockey International

-- do ncr am 17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Trackinfo ( talk) 02:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Very weak keep but not for the reasons above. Reference material is thin on the ground but there is a passing mention in the New York Times. Ironically, that is in an article about how the whole sport is (or maybe, was, as this dates to 2011) in decline [19]. That is the only Google News hit. The team seems to have lasted less than a year and its main claim to fame seems to be that it is mentioned in a lawsuit [20]. I don't see any harm in having a stub, particularly if it were referenced to those two sources, but I see zero chance that it will ever be a proper article. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:06, 25 January 2017 (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.

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. Per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash  ^{talk  stalk} 08:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Los Angeles Blades (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• These all seem similar:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orlando Jackals
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Connecticut Coasters
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los Angeles Blades
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empire State Cobras
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Blue Ox
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St. Louis Vipers
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San Diego Barracudas
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long Island Jawz
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Las Vegas Flash
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa Wheels
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philadelphia Bulldogs
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montreal Roadrunners
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roller Hockey International

-- do ncr am 17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Professional sports teams are generally notable. Also, these pages were not all created by the same user. Nominator must remember to assume good faith and not make such baseless accusations. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- do ncr am 17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude ( talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Trackinfo ( talk) 02:01, 25 January 2017 (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.

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. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Montreal Roadrunners (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Though neither the English nor French article states it, the team was named for the nickname of its coach, former Habs great Yvan Cournoyer. Anyway, that bit of lore out of the way, we do still have strong one existing reliable source, this RDS retrospective. Hockey and Cournoyer being what it is in Montreal, I'm confident a good archives search could find more RS -- though those would be mainly local press, raising WP:AUD concerns. (RDS is not local. It's a national French-language sports network, though of course mainly watched in French-speaking Quebec. Still, it would satisfy AUD). There are no RS at all on the French wiki article. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Professional team in the highest league in the sport during the height of the sports popularity with prime time games on ESPN. Easily meets GNG with looks in archives from the time. As well WP:SPORTCRIT does not apply to teams. It only applies to players as mentioned on that page. - DJSasso ( talk) 19:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• In fairness, the nominator is entirely mainly within policy. Because Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams says that WP:ORG applies. Specifically, teams are addressed at WP:ORGCRITE. GNG does apply. There is no free pass any pro team being inherently notable. I'm not going to paste this at every Afd but @ Zackmann08: is not doing anything wrong, policy-wise, that I can see. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ Trackinfo and Djsasso: kindly read the above and get off my back. If you disagree with my nomination, say so and discuss the article ON ITS MERITS. Stop attacking me personally and saying that I'm violating rules and policy. -- Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 20:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• There are discussing the article ON ITS MERITS. Stop being so defensive. I haven't seen a single personal attack against you in any of these discussions. Criticism is not the same thing as a personal attack. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Except I wasn't attacking you personally. I was being critical of your actions. Those are two different things, I also never said you did anything against policy although after a number of nominations where you didn't put notices on the pages, copying the same rational to many AfDs without checking to see if they fit, prods when the articles weren't eligible for prods, misrepresenting facts, among other things it would be any easy case to make for being disruptive. However, that was before you did actually violate a guideline here and here when you WP:CANVASSed some editors. Now you have been breaking a guideline. You see just stating "comment pro or con" when you message only select people who all happened to agree with you in a previous Afd doesn't negate the canvass as that is known as votestacking. Especially when you use words like "Go Team" in regards to your deletion efforts. - DJSasso ( talk) 02:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply