Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Yashtalk stalk 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Minnesota Arctic Blast

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * These all seem similar:
 * Articles_for_deletion/Orlando Jackals
 * Articles_for_deletion/Connecticut Coasters
 * Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Arctic Blast
 * Articles_for_deletion/Los Angeles Blades
 * Articles_for_deletion/Empire State Cobras
 * Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota Blue Ox
 * Articles_for_deletion/St. Louis Vipers
 * Articles_for_deletion/San Diego Barracudas
 * Articles_for_deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons
 * Articles_for_deletion/Long Island Jawz
 * Articles_for_deletion/Las Vegas Flash
 * Articles_for_deletion/Pittsburgh Phantoms (RHI)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Ottawa Wheels
 * Articles_for_deletion/Philadelphia Bulldogs
 * Articles_for_deletion/Montreal Roadrunners
 * Articles_for_deletion/Roller Hockey International
 * -- do ncr  am  17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Professional sports teams are notable. Also, the articles were not all created by one user, and the nominator should remember to assume good faith and not make incorrect accusations. Smartyllama (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- do ncr  am  17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep  Trackinfo (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It is all very well for people to be criticising these identical nominations but pasting identical keep !votes on all the AfDs seems almost as bad. Are you checking each subject for notability or just !voting Keep to them all automatically? Anyway, I can't decide on this one. It would be a delete from me, as it seems to have pretty much nothing in RS coverage when I look at Google News, Newspapers and Books, except that it is mentioned in a lawsuit in which they sued their own league. That probably deserves a mention, either here on in the RHI article, if only to provide a bit of interest to an otherwise tedious subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. If the nom wants each article to be reviewed on its own merits, he should not open ~20 AfDs at the same time. I am not going to search for references for each article individually, especially since the nom evidently made no such search either. Lepricavark (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been checking each one individually. Most of them take less than 5 minutes (using the Google News, Newspapers and Books links provided at the top of the page) to be found clearly non-notable or clearly exceptions to the general non-notability of most things about this subject. Only a few lurking just on the edge of deserving the benefit of the doubt take longer to decide and those are the ones that I have been saying "neutral" to as I don't want to spend too long on this either. Even if the nominations were better and the AfDs grouped (which I agree would have been helpful) it would still be the case that some of the subjects would be more notable than others and so I think we would still be looking at them individually either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:40, 26 January 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.