Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingston Jets

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Jets

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

I have never seen a page as bad as this on Wikipedia. Full of jokes and exclamations. Issues tag was on there since 2008, couldn't find a serious previous edit. LeverageSerious (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article wasn't always written in its current joking and sarcastic style, but on the other hand it doesn't seem to have ever had references establishing notability for this amateur club, either. If this club is truly notable, the article can be re-written with proper sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no sources and gives no indication of why this club is notable. Merely existing is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 18 September 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.