Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Professional 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 of the debate was 1, 2, 3...Uhhh......(9 delete, 7 keep, 1 merge) no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 20:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Professional Hockey League

League that never got out of the talking phase. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete another back-of-the-envelope league. Homey 04:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Wish I could say merge to 2004-05 NHL lockout - but without any net presence (all the hits seem to come to a league that existed between 1926 and 1930), I'd have to say delete as unverifiable, and possible hoax. Sam Vimes 16:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Keep the rewrite. Sam Vimes 16:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be notable enough to be relevant. See my new comment below. Stifle 00:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please explain what makes a nonexistant league notable and relevant. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It has been announced, I presume it will start. Stifle 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • What do you base that presumption on? Homey 02:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You presume wrong. Lots of things get announced. This was announced during the NHL strike, the strike was settled, the reason for the league's supposed formation is moot. You are voting blind. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I will not be pressured into changing my vote, my opinion stands. If nothing else there is historical relevance. Stifle 10:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Sigh. I'm not trying to pressure you, I just wish you'd give a meaningful reason, since the only reasons you have given seem bizarre, to say the least. And I apologize if you consider that an attack, but it's my feeling. Your single vote is going to cause heartburn on this discussion because there haven't been enough participants to counter it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
          

Relisting in hopes of achieving some sort of consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 03:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment It appears to be really happening, according to this website -- but I don't know enough about this to actually vote. Peachlette 04:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That website looks pretty out of date. It only talks about what is coming up, but not as if anything actually happened. Peyna 04:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The league has been saying they'll start really soon (next season, this season, in two months) ever since their inception, which was at least a year and a half ago, maybe more. In this time, absolutely no progress has seemingly been made towards starting. Lord Bob 16:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as that link is to a page written "a few months before [their] inaugural season," which was to occur in 2004!
• Keep. So what if it may never come to be. Wikipedia is not paper, after all. Matt Yeager
  • Wikipedia is also not a collection of random data, a crystal ball, or a place for unverifable or non-existent things. It's also not a dessert or a floor wax, which is about as relevant as the "not paper" argument. --Calton | Talk 06:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Fortunately, the article is none of these things. It's not "random", it's not "unverifiable"... as for non-existant, we have an article on The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, don't we? As for a crystal ball, well, there's an article on the year 2006, isn't there? Wikipedia can handle this article. Matt Yeager 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If and when they put down deposits for the uniforms and arena rentals, bring it back; but until then, it's the sports equivalent of vaporware. --Calton | Talk 06:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It. Doesn't. Exist. --Squiddy 09:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: There is no there there. When it exists, come along and devote some Not Paper to it. Until then, there is no historical relevance that requires a separate article, and there is no entity that could be described in a separate article. If someone must say something about this presumption, they may say it in the article that already exists on the NHL strike. Geogre 15:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the article on the lockout. The fact it has a website and was in the planning stages is notable. There are plenty of Wikiarticles on things that were planned but never realized. I agree it doesn't need its own article, but the fact a "shadow NHL" was planned during the strike is notable and worthy to be included somewhere. 23skidoo 17:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Find some independent source that suggests this league was actually planned, and not that this is some 16-year-old's dream. Anyone can design a website for themselves. Sam Vimes 17:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I find your suggestion that this league was a 16-year-old's fantasy insensitive. A moment's google search would have shown you it was not true. -- Geo Swan 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE & REWRITE to be that thing that Sam Vimes found. 132.205.45.148 18:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but change to the actual league from 1926. Put the proposed modern league as a sentence in the new page. Turnstep 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I can support this. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless there is more evidence of notability, either in the strike year or before. As it stands, this could be a sentence to the National Hockey League or 2004-05 NHL lockout articles. 21:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've actually followed this league a bit since its non-announcement as a bit of a lark, and it is so dead it makes the new WHA look like a vibrant and thriving enterprise. I wouldn't be averse to restarting with the historical CPHL, but this article still needs a gassing. Lord Bob 22:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this non-starter. Denni ☯ 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but change as per Turnstep. Stifle 09:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Rewrite per Turnstep. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep May I remind my American friends that the wikipedia is an International project, not a solely USian project? Just because you never heard of a topic doesn't mean that topic isn't noteworthy in some other part of the world. Look at List of ice hockey leagues. It is comprehensive. Are you going to challenge the existence of every league on that list you have never heard of? The lockout was big news up here. Rumors that the lockout was soon going to end made the national news several times a month. And news of the progress, or lack thereof, on the CPHL also frequently made the national news. Yes, this article needs some improvement. I will make a few changes later today. I am going to repeat my invitation to our American friends to remember that the wikipedia is an International project, and not a purely USian project. -- Geo Swan 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  As a Canadian who has actively followed this league, I would like to assure my USian friends that you need not worry: seriously, this league is as notable as my Eastside Hockey Manager leagues. Actually, less, since my EHM leagues have had people in them. Lord Bob 23:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  What does being an American have to do with wanting to vote delete for a hoax league? Please explain why you think an article about a sports league that never existed, and never got out of the suggestion phase, deserves an article. And please stop making anti-American accusations. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• How does a request to be more sensitive to the fact that the wikipedia is an international effort make me "anti-American"?
• How is my request an accusation?
• I don't know what your definition of hoax is. But every definition of hoax I have ever heard has some element of subterfuge. There was no subterfuge in this instance. So it is not a hoax.
• Did you go to List of ice hockey leagues? It lists many dozens of leagues. To be comprehensive shouldn't it list this one too, even if there hadn't been an earlier league of the same name?
• There was an earlier league of the same name. -- Geo Swan 15:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And as I said above, I have no problem with turning this into an article about that league, which really existed. And where have I advocated deleting any of those leagues? Except for the ones, added by the same person who created this one, who keeps making up Plain States Hockey League, Michigan Hockey League and Pennsylvania Hockey League. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I follow hockey religiously and I've never heard of this league nor I could find information on it anywhere. If it deserves a keep, it is for the 1926-1930 league only, and not the new one. Croat Canuck 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove references to the proposed league that never happened. Keep the 1926-30 league. (And why did you add the 1926-36 IHL copy to the more recently defunct International Hockey League. The two leagues weren't related in any way. Maybe it would be better to start an International Hockey League (1926-36)?) ccwaters 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that it has been rewritten. Peachlette 11:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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.