Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Las Vegas Posse results and roster


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Las Vegas Posse results and roster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pure definition of WP:FANCRUFT, and I'm probably the target audience of such cruft. The useful info is duplicated at 1994 Las Vegas Posse season and Las Vegas Posse. ~ RobTalk 03:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~ RobTalk 04:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is already becoming controversial per the discussion herein, so a WP:PROD-style deletion would be inappropriate at this point. WP:PROD is "a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion." Moving forward, discussion about the article itself and how it relates to guidelines and policies is in order. Cheers! North America1000 04:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even though it's Canadian football, it's a close enough form of gridiron to add to the above delsort, so as to get some more eyes on this, I do think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat surprise this wasn't just treated like a WP:PROD, which is usually standard practice when a deletion discussion draws zero comments. ~ RobTalk 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? That's not been my experience here but maybe... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A deletion on an article that draws zero opposition for 7 days is functionally identical to a WP:PROD. WP:REFUND also allows the undeletion of pages that were deleted after a discussion that had little to no participation, so everything is functionally the same. If I had placed a different type of notice on the article, it would already be gone and there'd be one less closure to complete a week from now. ~ RobTalk 17:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * that has not been my experience and I spend a lot of time at Afd. Nominations with no !votes are relisted, not deleted, at least, in my experience. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion above has nothing to do with the merits of the article; it's just about whether precedent supports a PROD-like close. It's quite the Catch-22 if a single editor expressing an opinion that "delete as unopposed, allowing WP:REFUND" closes aren't possible at AfD makes it so! Of course, we have a guideline (WP:SOFTDELETE) that says otherwise. ~ RobTalk 04:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To get really technical, PROD's are only allowed one time, per the ombox atop the WP:Prod page. A user prodded the article in November 2009 (diff), which was then declined by another user (diff), with a merge/move suggestion provided. Another reason to let the discussion herein run its course at this time. North America1000 04:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete no linked sources provided and appears to be a simple listing of data. There is no commentary or assertion of notability of the list. Appears to be an enthusiastic editor looking for a place to park their data.  Most of the players are redlinks and the remainder are listed (or can be listed) on the main article.  The one season record can also be listed on the main season article without adverse affects.  I can find no reason to keep this article as it is, but I'd have no objection to properly merging data to the primary article.  However, most (if not all) of the useful information is already there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a sports franchise that existed for only one season.  There is no meaningful content in the article that is not already available on Wikipedia at 1994 Las Vegas Posse season.  Cbl62 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 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.