Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Rockin Rollers
: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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash talk stalk 09:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
=[[:New Jersey Rockin Rollers]]=
:{{la|New Jersey Rockin Rollers}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|New Jersey Rockin Rollers}})
Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user promoting the sport or roller hockey. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Professional major league team that was playing at the height of roller hockey popularity when it was on prime time ESPN which easily meets WP:AUD. WP:SPORTCRIT is about players, not leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I remembered when the team was created at the peak of hype in roller hockey and it took me just a few minutes to expand the article with some of the dozens upon dozens of sources about the team available from The New York Times. The team was active more than two decades ago and I'm sure that if I dug a bit deeper I'd be able to find, and add to the article, another couple of dozen sources. But just as easily as I found the sources, the nominator -- who seems to have prejudged the entire sport -- could have and would have found those same references. This is a complete and total failure by the nominator to meet the obligations of WP:BEFORE and to make a legitimate effort to preserve encyclopedic content. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep This is getting ridiculous. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Professional teams are notable, WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, and pages were not all created by a single user. Smartyllama (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep no evidence that nom made any effort to search for sources. Nominating with the same rationale for every AfD without (apparently) even checking to see if each article fits the rationale is a non-starter. Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep While I've generally been skeptical that many of these teams meet WP:ORG, the two most significant added cites from the NYT -- a single media outlet, to be sure, but a journal of record -- shows to me that this one is close enough to meeting GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I'd like to see sources from more than one publication but the NYT is enough to keep it. Unlike most of the others up for deletion there is actually some content here worth saving. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Professional sports team meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
{{clear}}
: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.