Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990–91 Yugoslav Ice Hockey League season
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Courcelles 22:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1990–91 Yugoslav Ice Hockey League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability of this season (as opposed to notability of the team). No sources at all, so fails WP:RS and WP:V. Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NSPORT#Individual seasons, this sort of article should consist "mainly of well-sourced prose", or else it should be redirected or merged to the team/league article (Yugoslav Ice Hockey League). Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I note that there are a bunch of other articles for various seasons of the Yugoslav Ice Hockey League (going back to 1973-74). Some of these have statistics added, while others are no more than lists of teams. My impression is that they should all be either deleted, or else merged to Yugoslav Ice Hockey League; but rather than generate a zillion almost identical AfD's, I would propose that we see what the consensus is on this one, and then deal with the others in the same way. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep You're joking with these deletions! These articles are notable enough to be on the Czech and Slovene Wikipedia's. And they are not just a list of teams, they are the final ranking of the teams. How about the thousands of articles on football seasons that have little to no prose? They are not identical the, final ranking of the league changes every year. This is ridiculous that an article on a top level ice hockey league is being proposed for deletion. --Hockeyben ✉ 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - These types of articles are appropriate and the information certainly verifiable. I don't think merging 30 years of season articles into the main article would be feasible. Rlendog (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because season pages of leagues are notable for notable leagues. However, I would strongly urge the creator of the pages to put more in them than just a list of the order the teams finished in. Otherwise they could very well fall afoul of WP:NOTSTATS. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DJsasso, out of all the standings I've done, these are the only ones that only have the final ranking, as the information was so scarce, on all the other ones, they have a standings table with GP-W-L-T-GF-GA-Pts in them. --Hockeyben ✉ 15:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case then I wouldn't create them until you have more information. But that is just my personal preference. -DJSasso (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, these were the only set that didn't have a final table, just a final ranking. And the main reason I created them is that they had articles on the Czech, Slovene, and Serbian Wikipedia's, and I thought that English Wikipedia should have an article on them too. --Hockeyben ✉ 14:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If the league is notable then the season is as well. Article needs expansion not deletion. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2011 (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.