Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Division (RHI)


 * 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 redirect to Roller Hockey International. After considering SpinningSpark's previous close and looking at what changed his mind, I still see a consensus to delete. I also see a willingness to retain the information and some suggestions to merge, so I'm taking the least destructive method I can, which is to redirect for now to allow time to merge any useful information. While redirects are free, this particular case is borderline and I would recommend deleting after any useful information is extracted. This also allows a little time for finding more sources if they exist and expanding on the talk page, and if it can be saved, providing the rationale there. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Central Division (RHI)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:CRUFT; no need for a division article for a league that's barely notable (if it's notable at all, that is). Deprodded by with a note to consider a merge, but nothing here is worth merging, and it makes little sense to keep this as a redirect. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

how do you come to the conclusion that there is nothing worth merging. It would seem worth mentioning in Roller Hockey International that the league is organized into conferences and divisions. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete although I'd be quite happy to see any referenced content here merged, possibly all zero bytes of it ;-p. Seriously though, if anybody wants to improve Roller Hockey International then they can, but that need not detain us from deleting this unreferenced cruft. Also please take this as a preemptive Delete !vote on the other pointless RHI division articles should they be deprodded and end up at an AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but open to Merge to RHI article. This information is notable and should be contained somewhere as this was a major professional league that despite the comment above was very notable during its operating time with national broadcasting and media coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What, precisely, do you wish to merge? This entire article is unsourced, so none of it could be merged as-is to the main article. Let's say we delegate to some poor sap the requirement to source this entire thing. The information regarding which teams existed in the league at which times is already contained in the league article, which is all this is - a list of teams folding and starting. If you would like to source this entire article to the point where a merge is preferable, feel free, but that would be entirely new work. Alternatively, if this article is kept, I'm happy to purge it of all unsourced information as per WP:V, which will leave a stub that says a division existed (even though that itself has not been sourced). ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There should be no problem merging unsourced material into an existing article especially into a poorly-sourced article such as Roller Hockey International. Deleting material solely because it is unsourced is a WP:DEMOLISH mentality. Policy requires sourcing for material that is likely to be challenged or has been challenged. The material in Central Division (RHI) has been in the encyclopedia since 2009 and it has not been challenged. The only challenge to it in this AfD is that it is not notable. ~Kvng (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that this article existing since 2009 reflects a complete lack of interest in this non-notable subject, not broad acceptance of its validity. It seems that it is so obscure that nobody has noticed that it should not be here until now. If anybody really thinks that there is mergable material here then I suggest that they ask for the article to be moved into their user space and then merge it, with sources, at their leisure. No rush. No pressure. But also no reason to make it anybody else's problem. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As Kvng mentions, only information that is likely to be challenged requires sourcing. As such pretty much everything in this article could be merged. And it would take two seconds to find sources for a major professional league to show what teams were in the divisions in which years so it isn't exactly hard to source either. The point of division articles isn't to show a division existed as much as to show the timeline of that division. So just showing a division existed isn't the point. And I should point out that if you had followed WP:BEFORE you could have sourced it yourself before nominating as is expected of nominators. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Was RHI really a major professional league? I'm not saying it is entirely non-notable but surely its detailed fancruft is non-notable and unlikely to have good RS coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Roller Hockey International as preferred WP:ATD. See discussion above for details and justification. ~Kvng (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Striking as material has been challenged and, through research, found lacking. ~Kvng (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge or Delete per Kvng. Additional references are needed in the parent article however. I think without sourcing, that article may also not meet standards. South Nashua (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Roller Hockey International, which presently has no mention of its own Central Division . North America1000 03:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked, and I couldn't even verify this division ever existed. Given the at-times-odd names of "divisions" previously placed in the see also section, such as Murphy Division (RHI), I seriously question whether these divisions ever existed. The few places this "Central Division" are mentioned on the internet appear to originate from this very article. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Maybe don't merge then. Struck my !vote above. North America1000 05:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I searched a bit, and not finding any coverage to verify this either. North America1000 08:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – Fails WP:N, and apparently WP:V as well. North America1000 08:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's hard to find any clear-cut details about this organization at all, let alone the kind of reliable source coverage that we need to sustain a proper page. I also support deletion. In terms of merging, as stated above, there's nothing solid here to merge in the first place. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have retracted my close of this debate on finding this article on roller hockey in Boys' Life.  This shows for certain that there is no hoax at work here and at least partially verifies the article content.  For the record, here is a copy of my now retracted closing rationale:
 * The result was delete. I'm usually quite sympathetic to WP:RETAIN type arguments, and certainly policy does not support being unreferenced, by itself, as grounds for deletion. However, in this case, more than one participant has made a good faith effort to find sources without result, and furhtermore, a suspicion has been raised that hoaxers might be at work here.  The WP:DEMOLISH argument is all very well, but there is no sign that anyone is actually building this particular house.  There have been no substantive contributions since Feb 2009 when the article was first created.  I will happily userfy or draftify this on request for anyone who actually wants to work on it. SpinningSpark 16:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.