Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roller Hockey International

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 08:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roller Hockey International[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. League lasted only a few years. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The initial critique was that this article only had one source. In fact it had five at the time. The NOM clearly did not do a WP:BEFORE but is apparently on a one person concerted attack to delete all of this content and wipe this league from wikipedia existence. In the few minutes between when I saw the NOM's intent to take this to AfD, I added another 5 sources and still am not off of the first page of google. WP:NTEMP This league may not have become a sustaining entity but it survived for six seasons over a seven year period of time. It had one, lop sided team get close to 10,000 in attendance, meaning it was a real phenomenon. This is the master article over 28 team articles and apparently a bunch of other articles about this league which have already been deleted. Since no history is available I can't see what has already been deleted. All of this development is individually being attacked in an improper, wholesale attempt to overwhelm the system. Trackinfo (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: It did NOT have 5 at the time... You just added those 5 AFTER the page was nominated. Which is fine, but don't imply that they were there already. Additionally "HockeyDB.com" and "sportslogos.net" are not WP:RS to establish notability. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: What I am saying is 1) You did not look before you went on this attack. There are a lot of sources out there. And 2) in that blind rage to delete this content, you are doing a mass deletion piecemeal. You are deliberately and improperly overwhelming the system. That is not the way to do such a thing and as an experienced editor you should know better. This should be part of a wider RfC on the wholesale concept. Stop all of these individual AfDs and redirect to a wholesale discussion. Trackinfo (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was the major league of roller hockey. It had a national prime time spot in the US. There are hundreds if not thousands of sources that can be easily found for this. The nom has been on a crusade to delete all inline hockey articles. At this point I am seriously considering this to be at a disruptive editing situation. Did you even remotely try to fulfill WP:BEFORE when nominating? -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This huge mass of AfDs is not the right course of action. Lepricavark (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: I just want to point out that I tried doing one large AFD and was attacked by multiple editors who said that these pages all needed separate AFDs.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No what they said was you didn't put the notices on each page. So a lot of things got deleted because people didn't know they were nominated. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have successfully deleted pages, which in turn leaves pages full of redlinks that also have gotten deleted. That my friend is disruptive editing. I will gladly join Djsasso in pursuing a case. Trackinfo (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What blows my mind more than anything is that he even nominated World Championships articles. Like who in their right mind would do that. -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I came here through the nominator's AfD for the New Jersey Rockin Rollers, where it took me seconds to find this source, which is one of dozens that are in-depth articles about the team and the league available from The New York Times. The failure to observe even the spirit of WP:BEFORE raises significant concerns regarding the legitimacy of the nominator's effort to destroy encyclopedic content about this league. Alansohn (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is completely ridiculous. There are ample sources available. Nominator is throwing out baseless accusations claiming all pages were created by a single user, which is completely wrong. He should be ashamed of himself. Let's close this and stop wasting everybody's time. Smartyllama (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (and consider this a blanket Keep for the rest of the RHI noms which are trying to nuclear option anything that used an inline skate and had a crowd watching). The United Football League (2009–12) and Fall Experimental Football League also exist just fine, even if very few followed those. Was plenty notable in its time, and notability does not expire even if we don't look back at professional roller hockey that much. It is plenty sourced and the nominator needs to definitely pursue WP:BEFORE before any future noms, and unless said departing editor was creating complete falsehoods (and here the editor was an IP back when they could create an article, so yeah, disqualifying that), there should never be a cause to delete articles just because the creating editor departed the project. Nate • (chatter) 14:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is definitely scope to make this a shorter and better article by losing the unreferenced cruft but the subject itself is perfectly valid and there is enough source material for a well referenced article if anybody wants to write one. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Better referencing required but professional sports leagues meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:05, 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.