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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Hockey League[edit]

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

Unreferenced articles about a amateur hockey league which does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable, long standing, Senior hockey league. Allan Cup national championship contending teams. Produced multiple national champions, a lot of NHL alumni. DMighton (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' not exactly the most important hockey league in the universe but plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Some is already in the article, other sources that could be added include [1] and [2]. There's plenty of evidence of day-to-day coverage [3]. Pichpich (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very notable league, generally produces an Allan Cup winner. Heck, in some places I believe local coverage is better than half of the lower level professional leagues out there. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is definitely the coverage to meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's a ton of coverage out there, definitely enough to comply with WP:GNG. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 01:28, 19 March 2015 (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.