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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Founders Cup playoffs[edit]

(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. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very standard season article for a professional sports league. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has put the league itself,or even this cup, up for deletion. The question is not whether the league or cup is notable. It is whether this specific set of play-offs is notable enough for its own article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and probably non-notable sportscruft. I am not seeing Google News hits to suggest it is notable. Given that the media can't get enough of low level sports trivia, I'd expect to see some passing mentions even if this were not notable. Maybe I was not searching exactly the right thing, so I'm not saying that there is definitely nothing to be found, but the lack of anything obvious is enough to suggest it is not going to support its own article. If anything here is notable, reliably referenceable (and not already covered) then I guess it could be merged to Founders Cup (PIHA) (which is also an unreferenced article in need of much work although not an obviously a deletion candidate to my eyes). --DanielRigal (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. The main article, Founders Cup (PIHA) was an uncontested prod. If that's not notable, then a specific season of that should most certainly not have a stand alone article. GauchoDude (talk) 20:15, 26 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.