Deletion of Sgha

Comment: 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 , some sections of , does not follow the guideline of  or . 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 The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.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  when all other articles must. I hope this helps understand my take on this discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:ENC||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Keep?  Please explain why this article should be allowed to ignore 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Zinco100, please note that you are in no position to suggest that a user refrain from editing - . And per , your 'factual' statement is unverified and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD||WP:VERIFY)

Comment: as a |non-notable local amateur sports league
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)

Comment: 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  (yes, I know it wasn't made up in school per se) in that it uses seemingly unique rules for roller hockey
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: 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. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: per , , and . The article cites no sources, and the league gets only three Google hits; one from Wikipedia and two from its own site at Geocities. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22stonehart+gardens+hockey+association%22
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:ORG)