Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RHI records (individual)

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. Kurykh (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of RHI records (individual)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG, Also WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Most of the records listed do not have any values associated with them. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user seeking to promote the sport of roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Rayman60 (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No problem with deleting this as there are no values for most of the listings, with no prejudice to recreation if someone ever has the values because as I would point out that WP:NOTSTATSBOOK wouldn't apply to a page like this because per WP:5P Wikipedia contains elements of an Almanac and lists of records holders is a very prominent part of Sports Almanacs. Its the reason why pages like this and season pages are completely normal all across the wiki. NOTSTATS applies to indiscriminate collections of stats, where this is a discriminating list of record holders. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total cruft with nothing worth keeping even if it could be verified, which it can't. Most of these "records" are not even filled in, not that it would help if they were. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 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.