Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006-07 New Jersey Devils 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

2006-07 New Jersey Devils season

 * — (View AfD)

Individual NHL teams' individual seasons are not notable or appropriate for enyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not an up-to-date sports site or Devils fanpage. Croctotheface 10:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, other teams don't have individual season records. It doesn't belong to Wikipedia to have game-by-game reports. --Deenoe 12:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep : The way the AfD was presented, it seemed to me like New Jersey was the only team to have this... --Deenoe 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 12:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above above. Also per above. ~ Flameviper 14:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as all National Football League teams have individual season articles for 2006 (see Category:2006 National Football League season), many National Hockey League teams have articles for this season and previous seasons (see Template:2006-07 NHL season by team), Major League Baseball's Minnesota Twins have historical season articles (see Template:MNTwinsYearly), and there are probably many other examples of sports franchises which have season articles dedicated to them. How is the history of a popular professional sports franchise not encyclopedic? Skudrafan1 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (article creator)
 * Keep, Skudrafan1 said it all. Bigdottawa 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Skudrafan1. S/he's right that there's precedent for keeping and I don't think this is a bad way to go.  This particular article could be made more encyclopedic with some actual writing but it's a good and useful reference point even as is.  Every individual sports team article gets deluged with news about each individual season anyway so why not split them into individual articles?  I'm planning on doing the same when the baseball season starts.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: For an example of what these pages look like with "actual writing" and some references, see 2006-07 Buffalo Sabres season. Skudrafan1 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a better example. Articles that are 95% reference tables and only 5% prose are sure to be brought to AFD.  But, at least for baseball team articles, people love to write details about every transaction and how they affected the team, etc., etc., so why not break it into a separate article instead of continually removing it and saying it's too much detail?  After all, Wikipedia is not paper.  (BTW, by "actual content", I did mean "prose" - sorry for my poor choice of words.)  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep useful reference. TonyTheTiger 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Skudrafan1 but improve quality of the text. Venicemenace 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been included at the list of ice hockey related deletions. Resolute 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper. A sporting almanac is still an encyclopedia, and I would like to see the nom justify "not notable" in this sense.  Focussing on an individual season for each team is no different than focussing on individual episodes of any given television series.  So long as the articles have enough prose to provide sufficient context, they basically become historical documents on sports teams seasons.  As the season completes, the prose for all teams will become much more significant, and this is something I have attempted to focus on in my articles for the Calgary Flames. see: Category:Calgary Flames seasons. Resolute 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - verifiable, encyclopaedic. Sure, sources are a little thin, but that's probably because the Devils are a lousy team. WilyD 19:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Non-notable topic. Xiner (talk, email) 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Skudrafan1 -- Scorpion 19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Skudrafan1 Kaiser matias 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Skudrafan1. Why should this article be deleted?  As Skudrafan1 said, the other professional sports also have this concept.  Also, as Skudrafan1 correctly pointed out, all 32 National Football League (NFL) teams have an article for their 2006 season.  It isn't very fair to nominate a hockey article for deletion if it's similar in concept to the one used for the NHL, especially if the reason is because hockey isn't as popular a sport in America as NFL Football is. Ksy92003 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP, Absolutely keep, I love this new idea 'NHL team seasons' articles. When & If all 30 NHL team seasons articles are created, then 'NHL seasons' can be moved from NHL team articles & re-directed to these sister articles. Perfect for shortening NHL team articles, plus the NHL team seasons articles, have more room for more elaborate Team season information. GoodDay 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A good example of this is at Chicago Bears seasons, a featured list, which is accompanied by about 80 season specific articles. Resolute 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent example of this being utilized in other sports. I was unaware of this series of articles; thank you for bringing it to the attention of the voters. Skudrafan1 00:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I had been holding onto this idea for some time, wondering if it would fit on Wikipedia, but the success with which the WP:NFL and WP:CFB has had with the concept for their leagues convinced me to go ahead with it for hockey. Resolute 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:5 (WP incorporate elements from almanacs), add request for past seasons as well (not just a current events log) and thank you for the featured list example. Neier 00:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is also my hope and intention. I've been working on articles for previous Calgary Flames seasons, and hope that others will do so for their teams as well. Resolute 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Skudrafan1. MrBoo (talk, contribs) 01:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Overwhelming precedent suggests that NHL, NFL, and other sports can have individual season articles. Even certain college football teams have season-specific articles that are very well sourced. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper. --- RockMFR 05:37, 11 January
 * I'll withdraw the nomination. I don't love the concept of these articles, but there's obviously a consensus to keep. Croctotheface 05:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Skudrafan1 said it all. SetofFive 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - far too much detail for a general purpose encyclopaedia. - fchd 06:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above (and this is not exactly "a general purpose encyclopedia"). − Twas Now 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Skudrafan1. Croat Canuck  Go Leafs Go   02:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the above reasons. --Djsasso 07:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This article is part of a series of 2006-07 articles and their is now a template linking all of them together. Also, team scores are encyclopedic content because we even have them fpr every game in the Euro Soccer Cup Qualifiers. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:29, 14 January 2007 (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.