Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York/New Jersey Rockers

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 New Jersey Rockin' Rollers. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York/New Jersey Rockers

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogout&returnto=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FNew+York%2FNew+Jersey+Rockers&returntoquery=action%3Dedit

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. A search of google turned up nothing but other wikis and a few mentions that such a league existed on websites that help people locate local sport teams to join. No coverage in secondary sources that establish notability and no coverage in news that I could find. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This guy again? You're being completely disruptive with these repeated nominations of everything roller hockey. You need to knock it off and stop disrupting Wikipedia with your editing. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - This current article barely even qualifies as a stub, and contains no sources to establish notability. I spent a while searching for some, both as the "New York Rockers" and the "New Jersey Rockers", and aside from a very brief mention on the official league website, there was virtually nothing on the team, going by either name. Pretty much the only thing that is out there are mirrors of this article, and a listing on a roller hockey fan wiki. None of these are reliable sources, so unless someone can find some substantial, secondary sources that I missed, I don't see this coming close to meeting the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Redirect to New Jersey Rockin' Rollers, per the argument by GauchoDude below. The team, under this name, still doesn't come close to meeting the GNG, especially considering they folded within a year of changing their name to the "New York/New Jersey Rockers", but a redirect to the better-sourced article on their original incarnation seems like an appropriate enough action. There's not really much to merge, though, seeing how little information is here. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as Smartyllama said, knock it off. This crusade is disruptive. Lepricavark (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lepricavark: you are attacking me and not judging the page on its merits... There is not a single source to indicate the subject is notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not attacking you. Discussion of your conduct is not the same thing as discussion about you personally. If you think I am attacking you, take me to ANI. But if you do, I will point out that you recently speedy'd an article right after it was kept at AfD, which most people will probably agree is evidence of disruption. And I don't accept your claim that there are no sources. Lepricavark (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I am unaware of the nominator's history, so I have no idea whether or not he's on a "crusade" or what, but just looking at this particular AFD, the rationale for deletion seems perfectly valid. The team is, as far I can tell, not notable. You say you don't accept the claims of there being no sources, but if you're going to argue that, you are really going to need to actually provide some, because, like I said above, I spent some time searching for some and I found not a single reliable source that talked about the team, under either name, in any sort of depth whatsoever. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The nominator's history can be easily ascertained via his recent contribs. For example, he tagged an article for speedy deletion less than ten hours after it was kept at an AfD. That shows a galling lack of respect for consensus and a determination to push forward in getting content deleted no matter what. The editor also has nominated ~20 articles similar to this one that were kept at AfD very recently. One would think those outcomes would give the nom pause to reconsider his actions, but nope... he's still pushing forward. As a result, my default setting is to !vote keep on any roller hockey AfD initiated by this editor unless I am 100% convinced that the subject is not notable. That hasn't happened here just yet. Lepricavark (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lepricavark: you just flat out said that you are voting to keep the article simply because I was the one who nominated it. You aren't even looking at the article, just assuming that since I nominated it, it clearly should be kept. Also the ONE page I nominated for CSD despite being kept at AFD was an 82.7% copyright violation (see here). It was kept because people like yourself didn't even bother to look at the page but just assumed that I am editing in bad faith and nominating pages to be disruptive. If you actually did look at my editing history, I have over 60,000+ constructive edits. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lepricavark: and if you don't accept my claim, or that of 64.183.45.226, then please, I implore you, prove us wrong. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Your CSD move was a bad call, period. I don't think you should be making claims about other people not looking at pages. You made no effort to see if these articles were salvageable before bringing them to AfD. I'm disheartened by your enthusiasm for deleting the hard work of other Wikipedians, especially as demonstrated by your continual pushing forward even after numerous editors have suggested that you stop. You've essentially made deleting roller hockey articles your personal crusade. I've made my feelings on the matter perfectly clear and no amount of badgering is going to change my stance. Lepricavark (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lepricavark: I find it interesting that a user with less than 12,000 edits and not even a year of experience is lecturing me about "personal crusades". I've been editing for over 5 years and this is but one of the MANY things I'm working on. Not trying to change your stance, just trying to point out how ridiculous it is. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        There's nothing ridiculous here. Zackmann08, while you have a claim here, I'm going to have to agree with Lepricavark regarding your horrific track record in the recent past, in which you've attempted to delete dozens of articles covering an entire professional league. All without any apparent effort to comply with WP:BEFORE, Wikipedia policy that obligates to look for sources, in a rapid fire effort to destroy content. You have never withdrawn an AfD in the past few weeks where sources were added, nor did you respond to discussion at AfD or on your talk page. For all your crocodile tears about copyright issues and "constructive edits", I can point to this edit of yours, where you tag bombed an article in an apparent fit of pique that another editor had the nerve to stand in your path of deletion. Given your past track record and your refusal to make any sort of good faith efforts to improve articles before nominating them for deletion, I think Lepricavark was rather well-justified in taking you to task. Alansohn (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Alansohn: I have no problem with "being taken to task" or receiving a WP:TROUT. I'm not perfect. I mess up just like anyone else. What I have a problem with is the continued failure to actually judge the article by its merits. These pages are not encyclopedic. Your only objection to 99% of the pages is that I have nominated so many of them. Yes there were some that shouldn't have been nominated. I accept that. But actually defend the article on its merits, not just because I nominated it. Anyway, I'm over this. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The rest of us are fed up with your failure to judge each article by its merits before bringing it to AfD. Someone with 60,000+ edits and 5 years of experience really should know better. Lepricavark (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The kicker: It's a decade old stub. Normally I'm for keeping these things around in the hopes they'll be expanded, but a whole decade has gone by. Doesn't mean it has to be deleted, though. If somesouls think another soul is launching a Dletionist crusade, Admins should be brought in. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect - Article doesn't seem to establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. An exhaustive search of all Google engines provided nothing to establish notability. Even The New York Times has nothing. If someone can come up with some acceptable sources I'll reconsider but as it is the subject fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 02:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Merge: Without preaching or standing on a soapbox, we'd be doing the process a disservice by not reviewing each instance. I'm unconvinced that all votes here have directly addressed this nomination at hand. That said, it appears that the club may be an iteration of the New Jersey Rockin' Rollers. Per sourcing there, the franchise attempted to play in multiple locations and changed their name to "New York/New Jersey Rockin' Rollers", which is very similar to this article. GauchoDude (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, GauchoDude! According to the New Jersey Rockin' Rollers article the team never played a game as the New York/New Jersey Rockin' Rollers. That explains the apparent lack of reliable sources. I have no problem with a redirect. CBS527^Talk 04:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GauchoDude I'm unconvinced that all votes here have directly addressed this nomination at hand. What does that mean? I don't understand it fully, though I have a ABF idea…L3X1 My Complaint Desk 03:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: Simply put, In my opinion not all votes within this conversation have addressed either the pros and/or cons of the merits as to why this article should or shouldn't exist. Bad faith aside, the votes of these do not help resolve the main issue at hand to get us closer towards a conclusion. It seems like there must be some history or bad blood that I don't know about, but any vote which can't objectively point to a policy/consensus based decision shouldn't be counted, again in my opinion, regardless of what the nom has or hasn't already brought to AfD discussion. GauchoDude (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. These kind of articles have no place on wikipedia. Speedy delete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per GauchoDude. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge / Redirect, as suggested. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 7 February 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.