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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Conference Championship (PIHA)[edit]

Eastern Conference Championship (PIHA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A major trophy for a professional sports league is notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I disagree; there's nothing inherently notable about trophies. And really, DJ, that line of reasoning opens up articles on Rookie of the Year trophies from the Atlantic Coast Hockey League and the Western Professional Hockey League, which I hope you'd agree is absurd. There's no evidence that this trophy meets the GNG ... heck, I haven't seen any evidence that the league does. Ravenswing 04:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ravenswing: funny you should mention that... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Roller Hockey... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very hard to find any evidence for notability, even from the PIHA itself which does not currently list it as a league award or maintain any listing of its importance.18abruce (talk) 00:28, 12 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.