Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Inline Hockey League

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. Consensus is that all of the articles identified here (apart from the withdrawn article) do not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Inline Hockey League

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

This article is the core of a substantial walled garden of related articles, templates, categories and souvenir keyrings. Given the excessive use of templates and more red links than Lenin's watch-chain this is clearly a massive case of overcoverage at best. I was initially willing to consider that it needed drastically cutting down to size, but that something might legitimately remain, so I set about PRODing the most obviously excessive sub-articles. Some of the PRODs were removed by the author. Having looked at it again, I now feel that the whole subject fails to meet the notability criteria. The articles lacks third party references. When I look, the lack of RS coverage of this sports league is glaring when you consider how the media loves to publish even minor items of sports news. Furthermore, the one really solid RS source for it (Hockey: Still Rolling, but Not on a Roll) makes it very clear that this is not a successful professional sports league. At least as of 2011, it was a pay-to-pay affair and nothing indicates to me that this has changed. As such, I think it merits nothing more than a brief mention in an article about Inline Hockey but no articles of its own, and certainly not a whole nest of articles, templates, etc.

Note:

AIHL

more notably stands for the the "Australian Ice Hockey League" and there was some (presumably accidental) cross-linking of the articles. You may see hits for this when researching notability.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they share the same subject which fails to meet the notability criteria and also lack reliable third party references:

General sub-articles:

"Zones":

Seasons: (These are all contested PRODs. I had nominated them all as "Non-notable sports stats".)

Teams: (Note: Only including teams that do not mention playing in other leagues which may be more notable.)

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

Withdrawn. See below for reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Obviously, I can't list the templates and categories for deletion here so I'll leave those pending the outcome. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I've had this page watchlisted for a while now, and the talk page is hilarious. I love how it's like a diary of your thoughts. Anyway, I have never seen a notable pay to play league and I don't think this one is any different. Per the source: "In the A.I.H.L., players pay $500 and sell raffle tickets and advertisements for the privilege of competing." That's cool and all, but your rec league isn't encyclopedic material. Tavix | Talk 17:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harford Fire Ants was a professional team who joined what looks to be a new amateur league at the time they joined. Their pages used to make note of this and I have returned the page to stating that. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. I do have my doubts about the notability of some of the other leagues too. Some are only nominally professional. But if I had known that this team was in other leagues I would not have nominated it so I'll withdraw that one from this AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I happened upon East Bay Jawz myself and tagged it for PROD, eventually finding this discussion. It looks like the nominator has done a good job identifying this problematic spate of articles. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trash the whole thing, this is just a mess of redlinks for a non-notable league.
Kage Acheron (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable. I Second that the nominator has done a good job identifying this problematic spate of articles.Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 8 June 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.