Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberta Senior Hockey League (1965–1978)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Senior Hockey League (1965–1978)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I couldn't establish that this topic, on amateur ice hockey, meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. Owen× ☎ 09:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - over 1700 references on newspapers.com in this timeframe. The league received significant coverage in contemporary newspapers. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 16:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hockeyben Could you please add some of the sources you have found to the article &/or list some here for a source analysis? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The league easily passes GNG. I have added some newspapers citations to the article. There are many thousands more mentions in newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com if somebody has the time to make the improvements. Flibirigit (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sourcing that has been added into the article during this discussion vs GNG etc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - per sources found by Hockeyben & Flibirigit. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Enough significant coverage to justify. The Kip 08:02, 10 January 2024 (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.