Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Blades

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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) — Yash talk stalk 08:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Blades

Los Angeles Blades (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)

Completely unsourced. 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) 17:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--doncram 17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Professional sports teams are generally notable. Also, these pages were not all created by the same user. Nominator must remember to assume good faith and not make such baseless accusations. Smartyllama (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --doncram 17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trackinfo (talk) 02:01, 25 January 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.