Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando Jackals

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 08:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Jackals

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

Completely unsourced (for over 8 years). 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}) 17:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem similar:

--do ncr am 17:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good coverage here, for one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --do ncr am 17:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Blatant failure here of WP:BEFORE by nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see WP:SNOW Keeps. Someone is out of line. Let me explain the principle behind WP:BEFORE. A responsible editor sees a problem, does a google search on the subject (so they become educated). If the subject does not google; take action, take it to AfD. Let's get rid of the junk. If you find sources for an unsourced article, add them. Problem solved. No other editors need to get involved. Instead, this lazy NOM didn't do step 1 or 2 and caused all of us to be bothered by this. Multiply by some 20 articles all AfDed at the same time and it detracts from all our our editing time. Trackinfo (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the source that Shawn in Montreal found. There is a story to tell here. It will probably never be more than a few paragraphs but it would be slightly more than an uninformative stub. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. This is so obvious, why is it here? Significant coverage abounds. Jacona (talk) 14:53, 29 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.