Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chilliwack Sports Hall of Fame

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 redirect to Prospera Centre. Consensus is not to keep, redirects are a good cheap alternative ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chilliwack Sports Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local hall of fame, very little coverage, and nothing which would allow it to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any useful content to Chilliwack#Sports or Prospera Centre. Mindmatrix 15:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the edit history, without prejudice against recreation as a redirect to a related topic. This could certainly be briefly mentioned in our articles about the city and the venue per Mindmatrix, but a local sports hall of fame does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because a couple of pieces of local media coverage exist — it would have to clear WP:ORGDEPTH, which requires coverage to exist beyond the purely local. But at the same time there isn't really any substantive or noteworthy content to merge beyond mentioning the fact that it exists, so neither copying any significant block of content over to another article nor retaining its edit history are needed at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW: I didn't notice when making my earlier comment that the bulk of the article was already deleted as a copyvio. At most, I would retain its existence and location, and maybe the categories and the one notable member. There really isn't much salvageable content here. Mindmatrix 12:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.