Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:OHA-C


 * 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 all per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk  20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ontario Hockey Junior C League teams
(View AfD) (View log) I am nominating for deletion the articles linked from this infobox. Not one of them contains any assertion of notability beyond being a team which plays in the Junior C league of the Ontario Hockey Association. When I reviewed them, I found that not one of them cited a single non-trivial independent source. Speedy deletion was overturned by an admin in the Hockey project, which claims to WP:OWN these articles, and a member asserts that there is consensus that teams at this level are notable. Really? These are local youth teams, and the articles are sourced solely from the team websites. In fact, Wikipedia appears to be leading the world in documenting the history of these teams and their competitions. I think this belongs on a Wikia somewhere, I do not believe there is consensus that low-league youth teams are inherently notable or that self-soureced articles are acceptable anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions.   —Djsasso (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You have a strange way of doing things, Guy. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, yes. Unorthodox is my middle name. Actually, no, my middle name is André after my famous forbear, but nearly :-) Guy (Help!) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Feeder system for National Hockey League and has provided hundreds of alumnus to the pro-ranks worldwide. The assertion that this is youth athletics is false, players are up to the age of 21 years old.  The "C" stands for the third tier of hockey, not of skill or notability, but of size of centre played in.  If the nominator could get off his soapbox for a minute, he may realize that we have templates that are good for putting on articles that require more sources.  DMighton (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not youth hockey as the nominator seems to think. Youth hockey is below the junior level and is called Midget. All these articles can meet WP:N quite easily as they are in articles in various cities news papers. If they are not referenced strongly now they certainly can be cleaned up. Not a reason for deletion. THey should be tagged and improved. Smells very strongly of WP:POINT. I don't see where anyone in the project claimed they own them. I think someone just mentioned to you that you should discuss before speedying and deleting your own speedies. -Djsasso (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, bordering on speedy. While I always assume good faith, this does seem a little suspicious, especially since there haven't been any cite or notability tags placed on any of the articles that I looked at from the templates.  That should always, always be done before nominating something for deletion due to lack of citations or notability concerns, speedy or otherwise.  Celarnor Talk to me  21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You want me to tag every single one with "no sources" because, what, the entire Hockey Wikiproject has forgotten about WP:RS and WP:N? Come on. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, yes. That's exactly what I advocate.  Celarnor Talk to me  21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment At least the main one. And a lack of article cites isn't generally a reason for deletion, let alone mass deletion.  It's the topic. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Regarding concerns on the talk page of the nominator, who seems to think everyone showed up to !vote based on liking the subject, I know nothing about hockey other than that it happens a lot in Canada and involves ice, sticks and a small rubber ball/cylinder/thing. Celarnor Talk to me  23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - per others. Speedy was wrongful, especially since they were tagged and deleted by the same admin.  Grsz  11  21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can someone link to the discussion where the speedy was overturned? Celarnor Talk to me  21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - per others. Speedy was improper and shows poor judgment and abuse of power by admin.Flibirigit (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as per pretty much everyone above. Plenty of sources available in the form of newspapers. Definitely notable enough. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback) a door? 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Unilateral mass speedy deletion of these articles was wrong, wrong, wrong. Why was it too hard for the nominator to add "no sources" tags to the articles that require them, but not a problem to add AfD tags to all of them? Come on! --Canley (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:CSD - an assertion of notability is required. An unsourced article whose claim to notability is being a regional junior C league club has no assertion of notability. Where is the assertion of notability? Why are they all unsourced? Let's look at a randomly chosen example, Simcoe Storm.  124 unique Google hits, zero on Google News, zero on Google Scholar, zero in Google Books, zero on my Factiva subscription.  And this is "obviously notable" in what way, please? Or how about Glanbrook Rangers: 114 unique Googles, including one scraped from test wiki, passing mention in some sports results pages. No sign of any non-trivial independent sources about the team. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I think there are some serious process problems here. I can't see any evidence in the history of the articles or the template that they were tagged for speedy deletion, which I assume means that the nominator performed the deletion without a tag. Lack of demonstrated notability is not a valid criteria for using WP:CSD - in fact, the description of WP:CSD is explicit that it is distinct from questions of notability. Importance and significance are the criteria for WP:CSD. The length of time some of these teams and leagues have been around, the fact that they've graduated players to the pro ranks - these are considerations that contribute to importance and significance, so the speedy was inappropriate. As I've also said, I believe that the Afd nomination is not the best approach either but, if it's going to be put through the process, it should be done properly. The articles are not currently tagged as having been nominated for deletion, and there is also no evidence in the history of the articles that they've ever been tagged as such, which is a crucial component of the Afd process. The template was tagged as having been nominated, but that tag was removed by the nominator, so it too is currently lacking this critical component. How is the community expected to weigh in on the discussion without proper notice being provided? Mlaffs (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe keep the leagues. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep If these articles do a poor job of demonstrating notability, they should be tagged as such and the community given a chance to improve them before they're deleted - this is particularly so since the articles are within the mandate of a Wikiproject. I'm not a member of that project, but I can do a Google search too, and I don't have any question that notability can be demonstrated in most, if not all, of these cases.
 * Keep Hey, I'm nominating all articles that begin with the letter Q. Sorry, but most people would describe this as a lazy way to do a nomination for deletion. I'm willing to consider the nomination of the Clarence Schmalz Cup, made elsewhere on this page, but one has to do a little bit of work before tearing down someone else's house. Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the articles appear to have been marked for deletion. Resolute 15:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the nominator seems to have skipped that critical step of notifying those working on the articles outside of the hockey wikiproject (no one owns articles, not even wikiprojects) that these articles are up for deletion. An administrator should know better.  Celarnor Talk to me  15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And not to pile on after my earlier comments about the laziness of this particular nomination, but let's took at the original note from the nominator, which is the only guide we have to go on regarding what articles this nomination covers - "I am nominating for deletion the articles linked from this infobox.". That means that they're also asserting that the articles for the Ontario Hockey Association, Ontario Hockey Federation, and Hockey Canada don't demonstrate notability. Hockey Canada? Really? Obviously, I know that's not what's meant, but without proper tags ... Mlaffs (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I would call for a WP:SNOW on this at this point. Especially since he hasn't gone through and tagged the articles with the afd tag. -Djsasso (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Keep. All the articles are notable.  If the nominator is actually nominating articles like Hockey Canada and the Ontario Hockey Federation, then they are oversteping their bounds as an Admin by a huge margin.  Patken4 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep due to improper process, fallacious reasoning. These are not "youth" teams. They are junior teams. Not just junior teams, they all fall under the governance of the OHA. This is the equivalent of deleting single-A minor league baseball teams as "youth" teams. More importantly, however, is the fact that this AfD is almost to the halfway point and these articles have not been tagged. Any deletion would be almost certainly overturned at DRV merely for that. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">BONK! 19:30, 7 April 2008 (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.