Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006-07 NHL transactions

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 keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 12:41Z

2006-07 NHL transactions

Wikipedia is not a collector of indiscriminate information. This level of detail is well beyond the scope of what's appropriate for Wikipedia. I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

Dsreyn 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I think the die-hard hockey fans out there will be interested looking back on the previous seasons and find out what their favourite team did to become a powerhouse team or what they did to acquire all those young players. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. This kind of topic is a prime example of what should be in a sports encyclopedia. If we have topics for the 2006-07 NHL season, why not expand it further and have this topic which seperate but related to that one? I see no reason for it to be deleted. Thricecube 19:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From WP:AFD: Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article. Dsreyn 19:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the relevant season articles. Whatever the outcome of this nomination, those decorative logos need to be removed as they are in breach of the fair use policy. Oldelpaso 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This has already unanimously passed a previous AfD just three months ago, and nothing has changed since then. Merging is unrealistic given the size of both the transaction and the season articles. It is still not indiscriminate information as it remains a list built around a specific topic: team-to-team transactions that occurred during x season. An opinion on what "the scope of what is appropriate for Wikipedia" is not a valid reason for deletion. Resolute 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like hockey at all, but I imagine if I did I would be highly grateful for such an article. Ford MF 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of hockey deletions. Resolute 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fail to see how it is indiscriminate. There was overwhelming consensus the last time this was debated. -- JamesTeterenko 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger than Samson Keep, how can this not be part of Wikipedia's scope? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and thus does not have to fit within a publisher's guidlines. Notability is definitely not an issue here, and I strongly disagree that merging with the 2006-07 NHL season will serve any benefit, as the 2006-07 season alone has already been broken down into many sub-articles. I do agree the logos do not have to be there, they are against fair use and are only there because they look cool. If your worried about indiscriminate information, why don't you check probably a third of the 1.5 million articles on English Wikipedia and see just how many topics are milked to death and repeated over and over again on this encyclopedia. This isn't even close to being one of them, Wikipedia doesn't have even close to as much information as it should about the NHL. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plainly a large list such as this one would be dramatically unsuitable for a main season article; that's the entire reason large articles are broken into smaller ones. Ravenswing 04:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering that yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this is highly encyclopediac material. There's much worse articles that you can go about deleting. Kaiser matias 00:31, 22 December 2006 (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.