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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship Division I

[edit]

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

Lacking secondary sources to establish notability. All sources are primary. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I like the explanations of the qualification process spelled out in its own article such as this, especially given how much attention Australia and New Zealand pay attention to these levels. Given the number of ice hockey players who participate it probably should be listed there as well.18abruce (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifications for world championships are generally considered notable if the championships themselves are, which contrary to nominator's bad faith nominations, they clearly are. Not only that, this is part of the championship itself, much like the lower divisions in the Ice Hockey World Championship. As such, clearly notable and nomination is disruptive. Smartyllama (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Shawn in Montreal said, There is no free pass any pro team being inherently notable. Stop attacking my motives and saying my nominations are in bad faith or disruptive. I am following the rules and policy. You are routinely not WP:AGF. Discuss the article on its merits, not my personal motives. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one claimed there was a free pass, just said they are for the most part notable. Generally you would have to go out of your way to find a professional sports team that didn't meet GNG. I can find sources for lowest of levels of amateur sports, nevermind the top leagues of a professional one. Secondly, this nom isn't about pro teams. It is about World Championships. The things, which generally are considered to give the athletes that play in them notability which pretty much indicates that the championships themselves must be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smartyllama's comments on the article's merits. Lepricavark (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Smartyllama summed it up pretty well. World Championships are notable and sources are very easy to find. It is ok to admit you got a bit over zealous Zackmann. It happens. -DJSasso (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smartyllamana and DJSasso, and this comment, which makes it clear that the nominator doesn't even know what the subject of this article is. As DJSasso said, this is not a pro team, and World Championships are notable. Please slow down and read the articles first before opening up any more future AfD's. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:53, 24 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.