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. Michig (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

District 5 Hockey Club

[edit]

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

This was a close call, but I declined an A-7 CSD nomination on this. That said I believe the subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't even have an article about the amateur league that this club plays in. Also, I suspect that the linked players listed in the article are more likely to be unrelated persons who merely have the same name as people who are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metro90 BobLaRouche (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cynical Metropolitan90 doubts that a California physicist, a 91 year old actor, a professional basketball player and a professional soccer player all compete together as members of an amateur hockey team on Long Island. Correct. Those notable people are not involved, and this local hockey team is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would decline a CSD on this; an article needs to assert a credible claim of importance, which a championship in a local beer league is most absolutely not. No evidence whatsoever of notability, let alone a GNG pass. Ravenswing 21:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new to this and I tend to take a conservative approach to interpreting the guidelines that regulate my use of the tools. If I ever get trouted I'd rather it for being too restrained than too trigger happy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I think I'll chime in here and say that I think I may have come across this and considered declining A7, but then saw that the bluelink names link to different people of the same name. In my experience, you're much more likely to get into trouble for being conservative than making erroneous A7 nominations and deletions. I'm not saying that's right (for what it's worth, I too believe it's better to be cautious if in doubt), but that is the case nevertheless because Wikipedia is full of editors with a liberal interpretation of the policies and guidelines, and A7 is often very liberally applied, as you've probably already noticed. Not too long ago, I was worse than trouted for declining A7s, to the point a topic ban was on the cards! That could well have happened again if I had declined this. Adam9007 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a few people warned me about the damned if you do and damned if you don't part of the job. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2016 (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.