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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was PRODed, but the tag was removed with no discussion. SGHA is nominated for deletion as an organization failing verifiability, as an article failing WP:VAIN, and as WP:OR, not to mention that it misses the mark on WP:ORG -- Whpq 00:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (I was original prodder), elaborate description of kids playing street hockey after school in one Canadian town. NawlinWiki 01:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per nom. SynergeticMaggot 01:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable local amateur league. Fails WP:ORG, probably WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:VANITY as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete This article relates to a small hockey league in a small Canadian town, organized by a few dedicated volunteers. It was organized to allow underprivileged youth from the surrounding area to participate in hockey for free. It is important to the community and we thought it would be fun for the kids to be able to read about themselves online. It completely arrogant to suggest this isn't important; it has made a big difference in the lives of several kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronbuttz (talk • contribs) (user's only edit)
  • If you want the kids to be able to read about themselves online, why not make a page on MySpace or even eteamz.com? This, however, is a general reference encyclopedia, and the criterion for including articles is not, unfortunately, whether they make someone happy or whether they make a difference to "several kids". See Wikipedia:Notability. NawlinWiki 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete SGHA does not fail verifiability as news of the league has been reported on quite frequently in several local newspapers as a venue where the premier roller hockey players in the region gather to compete. There has also been a long standing, and very significant SGHA webpage, which until recently was the source for all SGHA-related information. Many of the techniques and strategies formulated within the SGHA league hierarchy have been implemented in professional rollerhockey associations across Southern Ontario, most notably the Greater Toronto Inline Hockey League. The SGHA is widely known, with hubs of interest pocketed across the country, and in many cases across the continent. Locations as varied as Portland, Calgary, Toronto, and New York City have all had their own unique and significant experiences with the organization. I will do my best to update this entry with the correct references and format in due time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.232.186 (talk • contribs) (user's only edit)
  • Please cite those newspaper reports. Uncle G 08:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom -Ladybirdintheuk 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Kinu -Draicone ^(talk) 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete The SGHA is a well known developmental/summer league in the Greater Toronto Area. Those who have chosen to delete it are extremely unfamiliar with it and thus are therefore threatened by it's reality. Many professional players play in this league during their off-season. Most Americans are unfamiliar with the SGHA term. A conflict of cultures is apparent in those who are attempting to delete this entry. 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinco100 (talk • contribs)
  • Just a note, the preceding comment was unsigned by a user who's only 3 contributions start with a personal attack on my talk page (I won't be pursuing it as it isnt worded very offensively, and per WP:BITE) and then voting here, the third edit being to prepend his vote with a '*' that he may have forgotten. However, he has a valid point; please take this account when commenting here. (AfD is not a vote)
  • It seems odd that we've had two users with accounts made solely for the purpose of voting on this... sockpuppetry by the article starter? WP:SOCK --Draicone ^(talk) 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Instead of making accusatory generalizations about other editors' abilities to objective assess whether an article meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards, consider improving the article to meet these standards, i.e., by verifying your claims of notability by citing reliable sources. And for what it's worth, I am quite the hockey fan, despite living in steamy Texas. No bias here. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and Zinco, nominating other articles for deletion because they happen to be created by other editors who are recommending deletion of this one, like you did here, isn't a good way to help your case. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete - organizational verification [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunstorm34 (talk • contribs) Account whose edits consist of those to the article in question and this AfD.
  • Comment - That links doesn't actually, uh, go anywhere. WilyD 13:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That link appears to go to an error page. For what its worth, I've found zero Google hits and no Factiva references for this club to date. If you have other sources, please don't hesitate to source the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A roller hockey league in a town of 50,000? Um, no. -- Kicking222 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont Delete - In contrast to NawlinWiki's post. There is no mention of "school, afterschool, or "street" hockey in the article.(Zinco100 23:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)) User has already made recommendation; see above.[reply]
• Dont Delete - In contrast to NawlinWiki's post. There is no mention of "school, afterschool, or "street" hockey in the article.(Zinco100 23:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Note Struck out user's second "vote", despite this not being a "vote". Note that this user also left a personal attack on my talkpage, as he previously did with Draicone and Kinu. -- Kicking222 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Kicking222 uses the term "personal attack" as a scapegoat due to his inability to debate/accept accurate information and statements. Suggesting Kicking222 should formally refrain from posting on any Canadian content is not a personal attack. It is a factual statement to keep Wikipedia from becoming an American melting pot of information.(Zinco100 05:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Response Zinco100, please note that you are in no position to suggest that a user refrain from editing - WP:BOLD. And per WP:VERIFY, your 'factual' statement is unverified and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. --Draicone ^(talk) 07:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Struck out Kicking222's bulleted point, judging by his user information page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kicking222) he is marked by several items that suggests a lack of normal maturity. For example, repeatedly using the words "d*mn" and "sh*t" in his profile. By no means is this adolescent prepared discuss any article's relevance in Wikipedia.(Zinco100 06:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Response This is no reason to strike his vote. I see no problem with his participation on Wikipedia and would rather doubt your ability to remain civil and be aware when you are wrong. Wikipedia does not censor content, as there is no need to. --Draicone ^(talk) 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD no longer needs to be paused. Feel free to continue putting forward your opinion.

• Comment what is there to pause? The AFD process is in place to provide discussion to come to a concensus on the action to take for the article under consideration. The stated reasons for the nomination are:

  1. Verifiability
  2. Vanity
  3. Original Research
  4. Organization

• In the discussion so far, I don't see any of the comments in favour of keeping teh article really address these points very well. -- Whpq 13:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The AfD process is designed to allow for improvement of the article within the five day course of listing. I feel that enough good faith has been given to Zinco100 (and any of the other supporters of the article, for that matter), despite the personal attacks, generalizations, WP:POINT violation in nominating another article for deletion. I have seen no desire by the supporters to improve the article to meet WP:V as explained herein, despite repeated requests to do so, and thus there is no need to break process in this instance. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Draicone, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but there is no hierarchy of authority in regards to deleting pages based on Wikipedia experience. It doesn't matter if a user is newly registered or been on here since the beginning. We are all equal. I refuse to be bullied. (Zinco100 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Response Zinco100, I'm not saying that there is a hierarchy of authority for AfD. However, new users are not always familiar with policy, such as the four listed above by Whpq which clearly apply in this situation. In addition, I am not attempting to bully you. However, if you feel this way, then WP:BITE no longer applies and the standard policies that Whpq listed above state that this article should be deleted, end of story. Failing notability generally is not an issue, but verifiability, vanity and original research don't give very much reason to keep the article. If you feel it deserves a place on the web, I suggest you put it on Wikia. --Draicone ^(talk) 07:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD does not appear to be transcluded anywhere, due to this edit. Listing it on today's page for eventual closure. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It seems like the general consensus is to do so, but I'm adding another vote to make it clear in light of all the debate and argument. It doesn't satisfy on counts of verifiability, vanity, notability, OR, organization, neologisms and perhaps even the spirit of WP:NFT (yes, I know it wasn't made up in school per se) in that it uses seemingly unique rules for roller hockey. SliceNYC 01:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is far too minor of an organization to have its own article. --Wafulz 01:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 02:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An amateur neighborhood league? Definately not notable. Leuko 02:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I guess it needs to be said...While I can respect the feelings that some of these anons have completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites or suggesting the organization isn't important to the children. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules. Let me help out a bit so the people new to wikipedia understand. The real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there are no sources to back up the claims of the author(s). It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's notability with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article fails to meet WP:V, some sections of WP:OR, does not follow the guideline of WP:CITE or WP:RS. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. An article on this org must cite multiple, reliable, secondary, independent of the organization, non-trivial, third-party sources such as books, magazines, and papers that have national and/or international coverage. The articles must be based, or completely focused on just this org. Just a mention in passing is not acceptable (as it is concidered a trivial source...even if it is in the New York Times...the source isn't trivial, but the coverage by the source was. So far no one has shown that there are reliable secondary sources that fit this criteria for this article. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (as explained above). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. In essence, please explain why this article should be allowed to not follow WP:V when all other articles must. I hope this helps understand my take on this discussion --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 03:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete for completeness' sake - non-notable local organization. Opabinia regalis 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All it needs is to be wikifyed (it already has had the template informing about that) kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)please note this user's vote history[reply]
  • Comment Keep? Please explain why this article should be allowed to ignore WP:V. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 03:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can't this discussion simply be closed- and this article deleted- already? The AfD has already been up for 10 days, and there's a very clear consensus pointing towards deletion. Why not just get rid of this now? -- Kicking222 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:ORG. The article cites no sources, and the league gets only three Google hits; one from Wikipedia and two from its own site at Geocities. [2] --Metropolitan90 04:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable local amateur sports league. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Brian's eloquent explanation of Wikipedia's principles. --Stormie 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced, unverifiable. Easy as 3.14159265358979...WilyD 13:09, 24 August 2006 (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.