Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quebec Caribous


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The Wordsmith Talk to me 01:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Quebec Caribous

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It was a short-lived professional team in a minor sport, not at a high level. I couldn't establish that it meets WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  17:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, there's this 9-minute segment about the team on CBC Radio, and as seen here, the New York Times wrote about the team 22 different times, and the French Wikipedia article cites three French-language sources. I presume more can be found in print/newspaper/offline. Left guide (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'd perhaps merge a small section into the National Lacrosse League article. Even in the Fr article, it's sourced to a gov't publication, the French CBC then a University of Sherbrooke piece. Could be deleted otherwise for a lack of substantial sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The CBC piece puts this over the edge for me. I also found this article from Le Soleil after just a bit of searching. I'm positive more French language sources can be found as well. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. If you are arguing for a Merge closure, you need to present one target article to Merge to. More complicated scenarios can argued for if the article is Kept. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge — there's no good reason to have Boston Bolts (lacrosse), Montreal Quebecois, Philadelphia Wings (1974–1975), Quebec Caribous, or Toronto Tomahawks seperate from National Lacrosse League (1974–75); they've all been stub articles since the 2000s, and the teams could be better covered in the parent article. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's essentially an WP:OTHER argument that doesn't really address the sourcing or notability of this individual article. Such arguments accomplish little since inherently some teams in the same league receive more/better coverage than others. Left guide (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're interpreting my argument as, since I certainly wasn't making an WP:OTHER argument, but I'll further clarify my point. A league that only lasted for two seasons, with none of the franchises having ever existed outside of it, is in my opinion better covered as a whole in a single article for the convenience of the reader; especially if the "Teams" section is comprehensively written with the sources listed above and in the aforementioned articles, and synergises well with an expanded "History" section. I ultimately don't think WP:GNG should be an indiscriminate licence for an article with a paragraph or two and a roster list to exist, when it can easily fit comfortably in a well-written parent article. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Draftify – On fr.wiki it seems adequate, independent third-party sources appear to exist, but the article as it stands now doesn't even have a single source. I imagine the best thing would be to move it to draftspace until the necessary improvements are made. Svartner (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2024 (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.