Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship Division I


 * 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

2010 IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship Division I

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This championship has been deemed non-notable (there is no article for the championship as a whole - IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship Division I), no reason for articles about each year. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparently the nom didn't think other similar articles they nominated being kept unanimously such as Articles for deletion/2015 IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship Division I should stop and give him pause that maybe nominating clearly notable world championship articles was a bad idea. Just because a fully fleshed out fork of IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship hasn't been created yet does not mean something is not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Djsasso. The lack of respect for consensus shown here is also troubling. I really don't understand why there is such a crusade to delete roller hockey articles. Lepricavark (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This guy again????? Enough already. It's time to get the admins involved. Get him out of here. This is completely disruptive. Smartyllama (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I'd suggest a limited merge to the more generic article but, as the nomination says, that has already been deleted. The article is referenced (albeit in a badly non-standard way which makes it appear unreferenced on a first glance) to primary sources. This provides some verifiability but not any proof of notability. If more than one or two of the matches listed received media coverage and can be referenced to independent sources then I'll switch my !vote to "keep" but the onus is on the authors of any article to show notability except where there is a clear policy of automatic notability and this does not do so. It is worrying to look at the history of the article and see multiple authors and yet nobody has addressed even this most basic issue. --DanielRigal (talk)


 * 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.