Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancouver Angels (Ice Hockey)


 * 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 delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Vancouver Angels (Ice Hockey)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable youth hockey team that fails to meet WP:GNG. Many professional women's teams can barely meet GNG, nevermind a youth team. Did a search for sources and could not turn up any sources that went in depth on the team. DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

[[Image:Fairytale button cancel.svg|15px]] Opposition
I feel like I'm being targeted by certain users because I oppose the botching of diacritics in hockey-related articles. Also, as much as I hate repeating myself, the IIHF actually wrote a piece of news ( http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=8179&cHash=50c92eec834e0cf875456fd5e372b427 ) that went in depth on Vancouver Angels. That being said, just because your research didn't turn up anything doesn't mean my research couldn't turn up anything. Maybe we were just looking at different places? — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS  SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 18:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the responsibility of those wanting to keep an article to prove its notability. If you have more sources than this one then by all means provide them as it requires multiple independent sources to provide notability. You are not being targeted. I didn't even realize this was an article you made until you commented on the talk page. (and for what its worth I am actually well known on the wiki as pro-diacritics so it would be silly of me to target you for liking them) -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to any particular individual(s). But ever since I voiced my concern regarding diacritics, there has been quite many actions of proposal on deleting articles I wrote or reverting my edits. So I just couldn't help feeling targeted. Also, I just added more independent sources ask you asked. — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS  SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 00:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I think if there was evidence of someone notable who played for them it might help.  It seems to me that it would be better to make an article about world girls week highlighting the Angels.  I have no idea what diacritics have to do with this.18abruce (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Allow me to explain: I'm not a frequenter of English Wikipedia since my main focus is on Cantonese Wiki Projects. A few weeks ago, I started a discussion at the Village Pump regarding current conventions about neglecting diacritics. After that, several users had been reverting my edits and now this article I wrote is put on the chopping board. I don't know know if I was just thinking too much or if this discussion is merely about notability.
 * Regarding the IIHF coverage, I did leave a hidden note inside the article stating that Wikipedia couldn't recognise the URL address because it contains brackets that can't be removed. — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS  SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 19:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I did find a few articles but not significant coverage to establish athletic notability —Мандичка YO 😜 23:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: Would you like to elaborate what you mean by "athletic notability"? Thanks. — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS  SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 20:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I see you haven't changed your sig. Is that because you didn't read my comment below or is it a threat? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Two RSes that are local coverage but it still fails notability criteria. I would expect a lot more news stories for a team like this in the Vancouver Sun, The Province and non-print media. We don't see that. See https://www.google.ca/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q="Vancouver+Angels+(Hockey)"&num=50 I don't see the www.iihf.com "article" as meeting RS as it's tied to the subject. Also to clarify, it's not "the responsibility of those wanting to keep an article to prove its notability", it is the responsibility of all editors participating in the discussion to determine the notability of the subject, particularly the nominator. See WP:BEFORE. However, Cedric tsan cantonais appears to be creating a conspiracy theory that cannot be supported. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to look at the notes I left inside the article for other editors? Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS  SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 19:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did. Just because you're a presumptuous META:DICK doesn't mean that everyone is. The arguments are not any better than what you offered here. PS: if you're going to 1) act superior and 2) tell IPs not to edit pages, you should actually learn the conventions for editing on pages like this. PPS: If you don't remove the "SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS!" from your sig, I will take it to admin arbitration. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Let's put aside diacritical marks and personal attacks for the moment. At least two of the current sources are lists that offer little information, and another source is a story about how the team put on events around the world for women's hockey awareness, but the article does not focus on the team. There have to be more robust sources, or this article will remain a stub. Is this article at its upper limit of expandability? How much more information can reliable sources offer? If the answer is little to none, then I will support this article's deletion nomination. fds  Talk 19:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I dug through about 50 Google search results for "'Vancouver Angels' hockey club", and most of the articles are about other topics that mention the club by name only once and return to the other topic. Some of the sites list coach's experience with the club — nothing about the club. Many of the search results were of the club playing another club, so the site name-checked the Angels while covering its opponents. I ran across some of the current listed sources within the results, and they, of course, are more substantive, but there doesn't seem to be a readily available pool of second-hand information about the club. I must support the nomination. fds  Talk 21:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already moved all the codes to my sandbox. So if the majority of users support deletion, there's nothing I can do to stop youse. There will likely be my final words here. — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS  SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 01:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2015 (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.