Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland Skates


 * 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yashtalk stalk 09:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oakland Skates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced (for over 7 years). 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) 17:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Professional team playing in the top league at the height of roller hockey when it was playing games on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. Clearly notable. Secondly WP:SPORTCRIT is for players not leagues and teams and says so right on it. Thirdly this article was not created by that "one" user that you keep claiming on all these noms. Nom seems to be on a crusade to remove roller hockey from the wiki completely nominating many clearly notable articles for deletion without even doing an ounce of WP:BEFORE checks. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 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) 20:33, 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) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It took me a few minutes, but there were ample sources available about the team, which have been added to the article; with a bit more time (and patience) I could probably find and add dozens more. As with all of the other nominations cited above, nomination of this article for deletion utterly fails WP:BEFORE, a fundamental obligation that must be met before moving forward with an AfD. Sadly, has ignored all of the issues raised at these AfDs, refused to withdraw nominations where articles have been improved to add easily located sources and has simply moved on to destroy other encyclopedic content at XfD, without having learned any lessons from these previous failures to observe policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Keep Ridiculous!! Nominated hasn't done any research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 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.