Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western International Hockey League


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. -DJSasso (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Western International Hockey League

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a WP:BUNDLE deletion for articles pertaining to Western International Hockey League which is a "senior level ice hockey league" that existed for twenty years. The user who expanded this article to its current state also created articles for each season, and each team. My reason : None of the articles appear to meet the standards of notability in athletics. Tim 1357  talk  00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —Resolute 01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the League article, no opinion, leaning delete, on the season articles at present (should they ever formally be added to this nom). The WP:NSPORT essay does not have guidelines regarding ice hockey leagues, so I'm not certain why you are using it as a basis to argue for deletion.  Regardless, this was one of the top senior leagues in Canada at a time when senior hockey held considerably greater prestige as compared to today.  Teams from this league competed for the Allan Cup at a time when it was second only to the Stanley Cup in prestige. Easily a notable league. Resolute 01:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if you intend to batch nominate the season articles, you are required to mark each for deletion and point them to this debate. Resolute 01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the league article and team articles and leaning towards delete on season articles. The league is clearly notable. This was one of the highest levels of hockey you could play during that time frame. And I also agree with Resolute that its puzzling that you are trying to use the NSPORT standards for notability reason when they are for athletes not leagues. Not to mention that NSPORT is about when you can assume that sources exist, not the level at which something must be to have an article. It is a misconception that some people use that the notability subpages are a level something must meet to have an article. Not to mention NSPORT hasn't even been ratified as a replacement for ATHLETE yet. -DJSasso (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep league article and each teams article per above. Not sure on season articles. Patken4 (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The league itself is an encyclopedic topic. As with others, not sure on the season articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the League article, certainly. The season articles (or at least the one I clicked on) are rather interesting and far more comprehensive than I would have believed.  I find it hard to believe that they meet notability, unfortunately. David V Houston (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this article but something needs to be done with the season by season articles. It is probably not someone will tackle but they need to be short summaries with a notable highlight. --Stormbay (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm no admin, and I'm an involved party, I can see that the consensus here is to keep the league article. I was to ambitious with this one, and I may open another AFD for the season articles. If a non-inovlved party could close this, I'd greatly appreciate it. Tim  1357  talk  23:32, 4 May 2010 (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.