Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tampa Bay Tritons


 * 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 08:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Tritons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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) 17:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 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) 19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable team that played in a notable professional sport at the peak of its popularity. Ample sources are available to establish notability; sadly the nominator refuses to follow the obligations of WP:BEFORE. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 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) 20:43, 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) 21:00, 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  17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep  Trackinfo (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The weakest keep possible. Nothing in Google News but the one source on the article, coupled with the mentions in the Tampa Bay Magazine found under the Google Books search are enough to make it a valid stub if the unreferenced and over-detailed cruft is removed, so I have removed it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 25 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.