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. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCRHA seasons[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. 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}) 19:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of redlinks. There are also a number of bluelinks. So long as we still have articles on individual seasons we need a way for readers to navigate and find them. A list is one more way of doing that. Now, if such Afds as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006–07 NCRHA Division I season are successful, then a list organizing seasons is obviously not required. But the by-season Afds should logically take place first. I don't believe any NCRHA Division I seasons have yet been deleted at Afd? ~~If not, keep, for now, at least.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shawn's points are well taken, but it seems that the nominations for the season-by-season articles have, in fact, been closed as "deletes". NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above reasoning. GauchoDude (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes at this point it could even be speedied g8, I think. Remove objection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: well I tried that... Was rejected... :-( --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. Yes, I see that. "The list can exist w/o the links." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kind of pointless without the seasons. I don't think that it should be speedied, since we do have plenty of lists of things that don't have individual articles, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping this. Smartyllama (talk) 21:30, 23 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.