Draft:Tucson Scorch
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
Submission declined on 6 June 2025 by Theroadislong (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
Declined by Theroadislong 14 months ago.
| |
Submission declined on 26 February 2025 by Devonian Wombat (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
Declined by Devonian Wombat 17 months ago.
| |
Submission declined on 22 February 2025 by Significa liberdade (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
Declined by Significa liberdade 17 months ago.
| |
Submission declined on 21 February 2025 by Significa liberdade (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
Declined by Significa liberdade 17 months ago.
| |
Submission declined on 21 February 2025 by AlphaBetaGamma (talk). This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.
Declined by AlphaBetaGamma 17 months ago.
| |
Comment: The Tucson.com source is excellent. Try finding more detailed sources like it. Ca talk to me! 14:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: To meet notability guidelines, try to add at least three independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of the team. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Footnote 3 is not only malplaced, but exists in a middle of a word. All other footnotes are in a really weird shape. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
| Tucson Scorch | |
|---|---|
| City | Tucson, Arizona |
| Founded | 1999 |
| Operated | never |
| Home arena | Tucson Convention Center |
| Colors | Red, yellow, green, purple and blue |
| Website | https://web.archive.org/web/20000818125149/http://tucsonscorch.com/ |
| Championships | |
| Regular season titles | 0 |
| Division titles | 0 |
| President's Cups | 0 |
The Tucson Scorch were a planned American professional minor league ice hockey team that were going to be based in Tucson, Arizona.[1] They were founded in the year 1999 as a member of the Western Professional Hockey League.[2] But they never played a game due to the owner failing to post a financial guarantee that was required to start playing in the Western Professional Hockey League.[1] Causing the team to fold before the season began. Ending the franchise. 67
The team had also had merchandise that was for sale on their website and the radio station KNST to broadcast their games.[3] The team went through training camp but were expelled on opening day of the 1999-00 season. Radio broadcasters and team players were preparing to head to the game until they were told the franchise had folded.[1]
References
[edit]- 1 2 3 Star, Timothy Gassen Special to the Arizona Daily (August 19, 2016). "Hockey history: Gila Monsters, Scorch put Tucson in pro sports tailspin". Arizona Daily Star.
- ↑ "Western Professional Hockey League (1996-2001)".
- ↑ "Tucson Scorch - Tucson Arizona professional hockey team". Archived from the original on 5 February 2002. Retrieved 21 February 2025.
- provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
- are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
- are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.