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


 * 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. I am unsure what the argument is between the nominator and those voting Keep here, but their comments don't have anything to do with the viability of the article. The Delete votes however to point out that the article is unsourced and therefore fails WP:V. The fact that issue hasn't been addressed during this AfD backs that up. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

List of RHI records (team)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Also WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Full of redlinks. 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) 17:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Records of the top professional league in a sport are notable and not trivial. They meet the standard of WP:5P in that they are the type of information that would be found in a sports almanac and thus have nothing to do with notstatsbook. Secondly nom is again putting up nom statements that appear to be copy pasted and have nothing to do with the article in question as there is no broken template on the page. And any red links on the page can be filled back in when the articles are inevitable undeleted/recreated, AFD is not for cleanup. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes I copied and pasted because 99% of the pages have the same issue. You are right, this one didn't have any broken templates so I corrected my typo. Wikipedia is NOT a sports almanac and to say that a short lived roller hockey league is a notable professional sport is reaching. The redlinks ARE relevant because they have all been the result of WP:AFD deletions as clearly non-notable. A list of records for a league of questionable notability is insane. No WP:AFD is not for cleanup, but nothing about this list is notable and your arguments have continued to attack me and my motives rather than address the page and its content. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well you prove once again that you don't actually read any policies. The five pillars actually says Wikipedia is actually part Almanac. The redlinks aren't relevant as red links are desireable to expand content. And even if they were deleted with strong Afds they can easily be unlinked. That being said the vast majority that were deleted will likely be overturned once you stop flooding Afd with ridiculous nominations. The season articles for example are pretty standard for professional sports, most likely missed by most people who would have commented since the title of the Afd was only a single playoffs article. The teams that are red linked can easily be created since all the teams have survived Afd now. So that takes care of all the red links if that is such a big deal to you. Quite frankly if I wasn't involved in the topic you would be blocked by now for disruption. And I must point out the irony of complaining about someone attacking your motives, when you have attacked someone elses motives in all your nominations, even on ones they didn't create. -DJSasso (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Unverifiable and unencyclopaedic trivia. A hair's breadth away from being a speedy deletion candidate. This stuff belongs on a fan wiki and nowhere else. Whoever wrote this was probably getting the details from somewhere, rather than making them up, but we have no way to prove this, find out where or whether they copied them correctly. I dispute the claim that this is a "top professional league". I see this as the outer hinterland of professional sports. It was a short-lived experiment that failed to make a sustainable niche for itself as a professional sports franchise. It is not completely non-notable (and I have been happy to !vote keep on some of the other nominations where there were sources to support them) but it is definitely not worthy of a large nest of unreferenced and unverifiable peripheral articles such as this one. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * EXTREMELY well said. You have been quick to point out times where I was wrong, and I believe even gave me a well deserved WP:TROUT or two. Your points here are very well argued. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the records on this page are easily verifiable, they aren't exactly obscure records like most goals in a 3 minute span on a tuesday. All of the records on the page can be verified just by looking at team records using the hockeydb which has been held up as a reliable source on many FAs. -DJSasso (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I can't even begin to understand how anybody can defend this article. Are we looking at the same one? All I see is a borderline speedy deletion candidate. It falls foul of many policies. It is a pretty much a poster child for WP:LISTCRUFT OK, that's not a policy but WP:INDISCRIMINATE is and that definitely applies here. The things listed in the article are not genuine "records" they are pretty much random items of sports trivia. You joke about "most goals in a 3 minute span on a tuesday" but a fair bit of what we have here is really only separated from that by a hair's breadth. For example "Fewest points while reaching playoffs" seems egregiously trivial to me. If anybody thinks that this is anything other than indiscriminate then I challenge them to say what the inclusion criteria are here? Your point about verifiability worries me too. It may be that if one were to analyse the stats in HockeyDB (or something similar) then it might be possible to derive most of these alleged "records" but that would fall foul of No original research. These "records" have to be provided as records by a reliable independent source. If we need to derive them ourselves, as I strongly suspect that the original author did, then that is not valid. So is "Fewest points while reaching playoffs" a genuine and valid record in RHI or in sports more generally? Google says a resounding No! In fact, fully 100% of those four hits are for this article or copies of it! This is utterly indefensible as encyclopaedic content. If it doesn't get deleted this time then it will only get nominated again. In the meantime it serves no purpose except to encourage other misguided people to submit similar cruft about other subjects. That is not only bad for Wikipedia, it is cruel to the poor saps entering their hard derived stats into a Wikipedia article that is likely to be deleted. When people turn up submitting unencyclopaedic stuff like this they should be gently helped to understand why we don't want it and then encouraged to set up a fan wiki somewhere else. Which brings me to one final policy which I think this falls foul of: WP:NOTWEBHOST. There is nothing wrong with having a love of minor sports stats. They just don't belong here. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * read what just said. ACTUALLY read it. Stop judging the articles just based on the fact that I nominated them and actually look at the article. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop badgering me. You'll note that I didn't ping you above and ask you to read what Djsasso wrote. Stop judging the articles just based on the fact that they are about roller hockey and actually look at them to ensure that your nom rationales actually fit the articles. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well WP:INDISCRIMINATE definitely doesn't apply because the fact that they are records makes them the dictionary definition of being discriminate because only records are listed, now if we started listing "almost records" etc. then it would be indiscriminate. Then we have original reseach, straight facts and routine calculations can't be original research see No original research so it doesn't violate that either. And it most certainly has nothing to do with WP:NOTWEBHOST because these are in no way a persons attempt at personal web pages or pages related to a different project. If you are going to try and quote policies something fails, at least understand those policies. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But surely the choice of what we are calling "records" here is arbitrary to the point of being indiscriminate? There is no clear distinction between a notable record and a non-notable item of sports trivia. Your own example of a bad record, "most goals in a 3 minute span on a tuesday", would seem to be acceptable by your logic above. I know that is not your intention but clearly you are drawing a line somewhere where I can't see it because I can't see where the distinction lies. If there is discrimination here I honestly can't see it. It still looks indiscriminate to me. What I would like to see is the same measures (described in similar if not necessarily identical words) being recognised up as being genuine "records" (or an unambiguous synonym) by a reliable source. That source does not have to be talking about RHI. Next up, are these calculations truly routine? Maybe some of them are but others seem quite a bit of a stretch. We don't want to proponents of every crackpot theory going demanding uncritical acceptance of their conclusions because they believe that their derivation is uncontroversial and routine. Finally, I believe that articles of this type do (normally unintentionally) seek to use Wikipedia as a webhost for unencyclopaedic content. In this case it is not that the author was using it to promote himself but that he was creating a WP:walled garden fansite for something he was clearly personally enthused by within Wikipedia. I do not mean to suggest that he was knowingly abusing Wikipedia, only that he made a mistake in thinking this sort of content belonged here. Had he taken it somewhere else he could have had a thriving fan site going by now. Possibly more than one fansite given that his walled garden about the even less notable AIHL got deleted without great controversy quite some time ago. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep none of the reasons given for deletion are actually valid. The page wouldn't be full of redlinks if the nom wasn't on a crusade to wipe everything related to roller hockey from Wikipedia. Lepricavark (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to !vote delete for reasons other than those given in the nomination. Do you really think this article is valid, or are you just making a point about the nomination? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the article is valid. You can consider my comment an endorsement of what Djsasso wrote above. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Trivial and WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This guy again? None of the reasons specified in the nomination are valid. Nominator is being completely disruptive. We need to get the admins involved at this point because this is getting out of hand. Smartyllama (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails basic WP:GNG Article lacks independent reliable sources. Almanacs need to meet this requirement as well. I checked the  and could not find a list of team records. If the article  is derived from each team's "Yearly Standings" then it would appear to be nothing more than original research and  WP:NOT would apply. I don't see how No original research would apply. Since there are no sources to the article it's hard to make a case for this and if it is copied from hockeydb.com team's "Yearly Standings" it wouldn't apply either. A search of all Google search engines, HighBeam and NYTimes provided no reliable independent sources for this article, in fact, I was unable to find anything related to Roller Hockey International Team Records other than this article or mirrors of it.   CBS 527 Talk 19:56, 5 February 2017 (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.