Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985–86 Washington Capitals season


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

1985–86 Washington Capitals season

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is merely a sports fan spreadsheet from the eightie. It does not establish notability nor is it encyclopedic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is what WP:NOT is about; there's no narrative to put any context into the recital of statistics. This doesn't even get over the low threshold set for sports articles.  Not beyond improvement, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a carbon copy of other websites. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I found a whole template and list with several other articles that are really alike in formats and content. Should they be kept or deleted as well to insure integrity? See: List of Washington Capitals seasons and --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Lack of narrative context can be easily fixed. I have already added infinitely more narrative context to the article in question. I hate to refer to this, but see WP:BEFORE. When nominating for notability or sourcing issues, try to find them first. A quick Google search gives us reliable sources which show that the 1985-86 season was the Washington Capitals record for most points in the regular season, and remained unbroken until the 2008-2009 season. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- the sources and re-write by Patar knight make this a perfectly acceptable article. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the notability of season articles for major teams has long been established, and per WP:5, almanaic information is valid. As was demonstrated by Patar knight, adding prose to such stubs is easily accomplished. Resolute 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As Resolute mentioned notability of season articles for major league teams has long been established. As well this is very much a case of WP:SOFIXIT. -Djsasso (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We've a series of these NHL team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep their are tons of articles like this. Why should only this one go? BUC (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - article seems to have improved enough to allay any concerns. matt91486 (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic is notable, consistent with many, many other professional team season articles, for NHL teams and other sports. I do not see any reason to delete this. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I could be swayed otherwise ... however this is one in a series of 31 articles. Either the entire series logically should be deleted or merged by this logic. Neither seems to make sense. Certainly some of this information is encyclopedic and would belong to the main team article ... and it would make that article huge over so many years. Thus it is broken up by season and likely is obsessed over by folks who are into this sort of thing. What remains is cleaning out false and misleading information and attributing stats to sources. These are clean-up as opposed to deletion issues. -- Banj e  b oi   02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've tweaked the lede to point out they are an American hockey team, something I had no idea of (the country or the sport - sorry), all the articles should likely be nuanced in this way. -- Banj e  b oi   02:10, 18 June 2009 (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.