Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Kings

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. —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 01:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Kings[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG nothing of note found in a before search. Tagged as not being sourced in august 2017 nothing added since. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (with a likely Delete !vote): Having also done a WP:BEFORE as the tagger in August 2017, I had a hard time finding anything more than routine mentions (primarily from coverage of the Vermont Bucks-based coverage in the Burlington Free Press). Per NORG, I find it concerning that even their local newspaper did not cover this team, even with hosting the championship game in their so-called professional league. I use so-called because many players from this league claim to have never gotten their paychecks last season, and as of now only two teams from the previous season might still exist for the 2018 season (this and the Glens Falls Gladiators). There has been virtually no coverage for the two existing teams, from themselves or in the media, putting their status further in doubt. I know there tends to be a "presumed notability" for professional sports teams that actually played, but this one certainly reeks of non-notability right now. Yosemiter (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Can-Am Indoor Football League as a plausible search term. Not enough coverage of the team itself, but send the reader someplace they can find the info they're looking for. Smartyllama (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartyllama: Per WP:XY, they are currently announced as members of the American Arena League as well. So unless the Can-Am article is also merged into the AAL (which I suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arena Pro Football), then a redirect is not the best outcome per two equally logical search parameters. Yosemiter (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and just because a reader is looking for a particular subject doesn't mean that there has to be a redirect. That's what search engines like Google are there for. When I look for a subject the first thing I do is a Google search and if I see a WP I check that out first but if I get redirected too often to a page that is not specifically about my subject then the whole point of an encyclopedia is lost. (I am presuming that redirects are indexed) Dom from Paris (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a google news search provides a couple of trivial mentions and that's it. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2018 (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.