Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montreal Roadrunners


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Montreal Roadrunners

 * – ( 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:20, 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)


 * Though neither the English nor French article states it, the team was named for the nickname of its coach, former Habs great Yvan Cournoyer. Anyway, that bit of lore out of the way, we do still have strong one existing reliable source, this RDS retrospective. Hockey and Cournoyer being what it is in Montreal, I'm confident a good archives search could find more RS -- though those would be mainly local press, raising WP:AUD concerns. (RDS is not local. It's a national French-language sports network, though of course mainly watched in French-speaking Quebec. Still, it would satisfy AUD). There are no RS at all on the French wiki article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Professional team in the highest league in the sport during the height of the sports popularity with prime time games on ESPN. Easily meets GNG with looks in archives from the time. As well WP:SPORTCRIT does not apply to teams. It only applies to players as mentioned on that page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the nominator is entirely mainly within policy. Because Notability_(sports) says that WP:ORG applies. Specifically, teams are addressed at WP:ORGCRITE. GNG does apply. There is no free pass any pro team being inherently notable. I'm not going to paste this at every Afd but is not doing anything wrong, policy-wise, that I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * kindly read the above and get off my back. If you disagree with my nomination, say so and discuss the article ON ITS MERITS. Stop attacking me personally and saying that I'm violating rules and policy. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are discussing the article ON ITS MERITS. Stop being so defensive. I haven't seen a single personal attack against you in any of these discussions. Criticism is not the same thing as a personal attack. Lepricavark (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Except I wasn't attacking you personally. I was being critical of your actions. Those are two different things, I also never said you did anything against policy although after a number of nominations where you didn't put notices on the pages, copying the same rational to many AfDs without checking to see if they fit, prods when the articles weren't eligible for prods, misrepresenting facts, among other things it would be any easy case to make for being disruptive. However, that was before you did actually violate a guideline here and here when you WP:CANVASSed some editors. Now you have been breaking a guideline. You see just stating "comment pro or con" when you message only select people who all happened to agree with you in a previous Afd doesn't negate the canvass as that is known as votestacking. Especially when you use words like "Go Team" in regards to your deletion efforts. -DJSasso (talk) 02:06, 24 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) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked for Montreal -- which maybe fares best of all the teams - and a few other franchises. I couldn't find anything else of note. To !vote keep because the nominator hasn't made a strong enough effort to search for sources that don't seem to exist doesn't seem to me to be the strongest argument. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mass-creating ~20 AfDs without doing proper research is disruptive. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect the editors in this discussion to spend the time needed to search for sources for each one of these articles individually. These articles should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but that's essentially impossible to do under the circumstances. Therefore, I am !voting keep because I don't want anything deleted without proper review. Lepricavark (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand. And I have modified my comment above to say that I think the nom was mainly policy based. He did cite GNG first and foremost. And WP:SPORTCRIT, well, that's relevant only in the section that says it isn't, and that WP:ORG applies. I'd rather like to keep the Roadrunners article for purely sentimental reasons as well as a feeling that this franchise + Cournoyer would have garnered good press back in the day. I daresay many of the teams in non-hockey markets or without notable people attached wouldn't fare so well. But if would take thorough     archival searches for each and every one, as you say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I added and sourced the Cournoyer content. Certainly it can expanded upon.  What I am looking at is a mass of AfDs that the NOM is apparently unwilling to retract.  That is not a personal attack, it is mentioning bad behavior.  And since he is mentioning my name above, Note: I have not been to this article previously.Trackinfo (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The book cite you added doesn't seem to mention the nickname connection, annoyingly. But you can find that here, though it's a passing mention of the team, in terms of WP:N. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Lepricavark. And these other AFDs 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  17:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:24, 24 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.