Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers


 * 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. A particularly sound argument by User:Ravenswing.  A  Train talk 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

List of American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a directory on people commentating on sports games. Tvx1 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article violates WP:NOTDIR.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 17:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly runs afoul of WP:NOT. LAroboGuy (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way! Say you tune into ESPN Classic or any other outlet that is broadcasting an old sports broadcast (say prior to your birth or from a time in which you were either too young to remember or simply prior to you getting interested in one particular sport in the first place), and that immediately arouses your curiosity over whom exactly did the commentary for said game. Also, it must be stressed that many sportscasts up until about the mid-1970s were erased by the networks (such as the first two Super Bowls and many World Series telecasts) as a means of saving money and tape space.  Therefore, it would likely be much harder to "learn" about who, where and how these particular events were covered (sure you could go to the individual articles of said event, but that's isn't exactly as streamlined and concentrated as the former). BornonJune8 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an incredibly naive and shallow statement. You're in effect, devaluing the contributions of the respective sports commentators (by that logic, why should we delve deep into such a thing in the first place) and the networks at hand to have broadcast major events like the Super Bowl, World Series, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Finals, etc.  Whether you like it or not, a broadcast (whether it be radio or television) of such an event, is incredibly vital and important to the mass viewing or listening public (especially to those who can't afford to be at the games in person) There are many other various lists that detail/document the historical account of specific entertainment occurrences and the like.  In effect, it's just one factor (albeit an important or crucial one none the less) of a much broader spectrum or scope. BornonJune8 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some examples of these lists? It sounds like some of them may be candidates for deletion under WP:NOTDIR. LAroboGuy (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We would quite frankly and simply quickly enter a sort of "slippery slope" territory or perspective if you were to go that particular route! And since I've already been through this sort of thing before, rather than try come up with a quite lengthy retort, here's what I said in better detail (to just give you some better "food for thought") in regards to TVx1's own suggestions/argument several months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ESPN_College_Football_on_ABC_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Monday_Night_Football_results_(1990%E2%80%932009)

BornonJune8 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bare in mind that this article was created in the first place, as a "compromise of sorts" for a deleted template on the same subject. I know that I'm not going to immediately sway your opinion into my own favor, but I none the less, feel that somebody should give more time to consider something somebody else said before quickly jumping to conclusions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_9#Template:American_Stanley_Cup_Finals_television_announcers BornonJune8 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The reasons this article was created are, frankly, irrelevant. The only thing that matters is, does this article meet notability guidelines set out in WP:LISTN? Has this list been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"? It has not. It also falls squarely in the descriptions of "What Wikipedia is not". Therefore, delete. LAroboGuy (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't even create that particular article in the first place, so don't entirely lay it on me if you have such a major issue with it. And yes, I've been trying to "supplement" or flesh out (including sources to "back it up") the article by giving a greater detail for the corresponding lists.  It isn't purely a simple "list" per se as it is a point-by-point television broadcasting historical documentation (hence the added material that I just mentioned).  There are various statistical lists (for the players) regarding the National Hockey League, so how exactly is the broadcasting portion extremely or radically different? BornonJune8 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1 I haven't "laid it on you", as you put it; it doesn't matter who created the article or who maintains it; it's totally irrelevant. #2 See Other stuff exists for why your last sentence has no bearing on keeping or deleting this article. LAroboGuy (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The deletion of that template should have demonstrated to you that this sort of content doesn't belong here. There was no need to put it somewhere else "as a compromise" at all. If the community decides that something needs to be deleted than that should be respected. Yes, television coverage of sports games has its notability. We have the relevant articles on the coverage of baseball regardless of the existence of this one. Having trivial, indiscriminate lists of commentators on sports games is utterly unnecessary. What matters most of all in sports events is who participates, who wins and how they do, not which exact persons have commentated on them.Tvx1 18:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And what, these said sports events aren't broadcast at all? I mean, how are the fans who aren't their in person going to exactly keep a close track on these events in the first place?  And you bring up "relevant articles" on the coverage of baseball yet you on the same token seem imply that the coverage as a whole doesn't really matter (since that isn't the "core" issue, which is a rather blase and narrow-minded suggestion to boldly proclaim).  You can't just have it both ways.  And you may personally think that something like this is "trivial" or "indiscriminate" (it's way more time consuming anyway to look at singular events, one at a time and learn about the announcers and networks to have broadcast them), but you can't act like you personally speak for the majority.  For example, please explain these blogs/sites tracking sports broadcasting history if something like this is none the less, dismissive. At this rate, we might as well not have individual articles in general for sports commentators, if we shouldn't be able to better learn about the significant events that they covered during their respective careers:
 * http://www.classictvsports.com/
 * http://sabrmedia.org/databases/network-tv-broadcasts/searchable-network-tv-broadcasts/
 * http://awfulannouncing.com/
 * BornonJune8 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please actually read what an other user writes. It's quite comical that you come to my talk page to accuse another user of putting words in your mouth only to show that behavior here yourself. I never wrote TV coverage is not important. I just stated that it's less important than the sportive aspect of sports events. We have articles on the sports. We have article on its coverage in the media. Having lists on all people who worked on the broadcast of one sports event is just overkill.Tvx1 10:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am reading what others write, hence why I'm responding in the first place. And I went to your talk page because somebody else was talking about me (behind my back), hence why I felt the need to defend myself.  Just because I may not exactly or necessarily agree with what others have to say right off the bat doesn't change that.  And the broadcasters (or the lists of said broadcasters) is just one but still none the less, crucial component (like there aren't various other lists of some kind devoted to one particular major sporting event to pick off of) of the actual event or league (or even to be more centered, the network's respective coverage itself).  The broadcasting aspect in some respects, go hand in hand with the sports event itself.  If we don't have announcers and networks covering it (the list on their own, aren't exactly something decidedly "broad" and/or vague or generic), then we're for all intents and purposes (unless you actually purchase a ticket to go to the event in person) going to be left in the dark. BornonJune8 (talk) x1 23:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You do realize that most of these sport leagues actually predate broadcasting, don't you? Many of the leagues started well before the invention of television and even radio. People were kept informed through after-the-event reporting and through attending games. Those leagues were perfectly able to happen without being broadcast and people certainly were aware of what happened.Tvx1 10:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And likewise, you do realize that things evolve over time, especially the way that we keep track of sports? It doesn't make a lot of sense to try to purely see things from the perspective of what predated broadcasting.  There was a time in which motion pictures didn't have sound (and either way, were in black and white as well as the early stages of television) to them, so I don't entirely understand that point of view.  That's an otherwise, one-note angle to take.  And that would be kind of like suggesting that we shouldn't have list devoted to television ratings since there was a point in time in which people didn't watch television (since it wasn't invented yet)! BornonJune8 (talk)  11:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It was just a reply to your claim that broadcasting is crucial to sports. The actual reality is that sports have always taken place, with our without broadcasting.Tvx1 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Heaven knows I've been branded (with some justification) a deletionist, but I'm failing to see the valid grounds to delete this list beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It meets the requirements of WP:LISTNAME -- the names are overwhelmingly linked to extant articles, the list itself is heavily sourced, it's not at all an open-ended list, and I've seen above the argument for its being encyclopedic. BornonJune8 could stand to have a peek at WP:KEEPCONCISE and be a bit less combative, but the argument's not wrong.   Ravenswing   06:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will note that the "list" has changed considerably since my nomination. When I nominated this it was only a bunch of tables without any form of explanation. Even so, I'm still not convinced of its encyclopedic value. There is certainly enough Wikipedia coverage on the TV broadcasting of this entire sports league. This subject does not warrant a stand-alone article. What's worth mentioning should be put in the already existing articles.Tvx1 10:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are some vague twists on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, really. I've yet to see a legitimate policy ground upon which to delete the article, and that you might not care for it yourself isn't one.   Ravenswing   15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: In it's current state it is clearly not an indiscriminate list with over 70 citations. After carefully going through WP:NOT I cannot find anything that this list violates. Looking at the issue of Wikipedia coverage; at most we usually only give most national broadcasters a mention in one sentence near the bottom of each yearly playoff article, so having all of this information in one place can actually prove to be quite useful. Deadman137 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Not really an indiscriminate list or a directory. Discusses a notable topic, and really doesn't violate any policies or guidelines, contrary to what nominator states. Smartyllama (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep notable parent. NotPaper. manageable list w/ limited parameters. Dloh cierekim  03:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per, and specifically WP:LISTNAME. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2017 (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.