Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Hockey Centre

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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Hockey Centre

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG by only having primary or links to the very low-level unsanctioned junior hockey teams (of which players in the GMHL do not meet WP:NHOCKEY) that particapte in this training camp. The entire comes off as WP:PROMOTIONAL and is nowhere near the standards for WP:NEVENT. Yosemiter (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer a number of responses.:

I agree that the article reads like promotion; that could be remedied though.
On the other hand, its authors do not seem to have sought to mislead readers about the leagues for which they have trained players.
I don't know anything about the rankings of the various leagues. I expect that User:Yosemiter knows what he's talking about.
Actually my main concern is the uneven application of rules for notability across wikipedia. I notice for instance that some of the world's universities are included in wikipedia in spite of their very poor world rankings yet ice hockey articles must refer to teams and players that meet — what appear to me to be — fairly high standards. Is this justifiable? SewerCat (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note my very first link, it first and foremost appears to fail WP:GNG. In the end, it doesn't matter what its rank is, but that it was actually covered by non-primary sources (ie newspapers, hockey journals, independently published reports, etc.). The universities you mention were actually ranked, therefore, had some outside coverage. This event does not.

My comment about the low-level is more directed at the reliability of the source as they tend to be very biased for marketing purposes (promotional).

(If you are curious about players and inherent notability by playing in a league, the list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. However, almost no junior level players are inherently notable. On the hierarchy of Canadian junior ice hockey, the GMHL, which calls itself "Junior A", is more equivalent to Junior B/C in playing ability but has more imports as it is unsanctioned.) Yosemiter (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: SewerCat's concerns are, alas, beside the point. The bottom line is that this camp fails the GNG going away, and that it wouldn't remotely qualify under a business-related guideline like WP:CORP. Ravenswing 06:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fail WP:GNG Ellen DeGenerate (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG as above. When one of the first search results is a Wikipedia mirror, I think it quite clearly is not notable enough for inclusion. Keira 1996 08:23, 28 May 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.