Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Edmonton Oilers general managers


 * 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   The result was keep, per withdrawal by nominator and no other arguments for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Edmonton Oilers general managers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnecessary. Information easily merged into the main team articles Edmonton Oilers. No reason for separate articles. Jmlk 1  7  05:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: It's become pretty obvious I should have thought this one out, and gone to bed and slept on it before the nomination. I apologize for the listing(s), but leave it to another admin to close it, probably per WP:SNOW.  We all make mistakes though, but I do regret the list.  Jmlk  1  7  20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all The main articles in many cases are long enough and the over abundance of lists detracts from their quality. These lists are part of as well defined structure of child articles for all NHL teams.  I don't buy that they are "unnecessary" simply because you say so. Resolute 14:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —Resolute 14:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all Per summary style. This should be split out to their own pages, most team pages are too long as is and will only be further split in the future. This is going backwards to the intended work flow. Merging them into the team pages makes both the team pages and the lists less useful by making the team pages harder to navigate because they are larger and for the lists because now you have to search through another page to get the same information you could get directly before. -DJSasso (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all as those are lists of very notable people. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep all - General Managers are the effective "bosses" of sports franchises, in charge of player personnel and coaching staffing decisions. These are well ordered lists for a major professional sport and this strikes me as an extremely ill-conceived challenge. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all per above statements.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I don't think anyone should get their back up over this AfD. Read these lists, people! I recently looked at all of the articles for categorization and agree that most are bare bones. They should be written up to a better standard. ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 15:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alaney2k the difference is that AFD is not for cleanup. Its for deleting things that are non-notable and the like. Its also not for merges which is technically what the nominator is suggesting. I obviously agree they should be cleaned up, but that is not a delete reason. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. I worked to get a tiny list table (10 lines) article deleted as it was a simple 'fork' of another article. You can argue that these GM list articles are 'forks'. The best way to support these articles is to improve them via editing, not simply say they should not be deleted. Is there any prospect of this? Yes. That's why I said 'weak keep.' The content as it stands today does not justify keeping them. ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Summary style actually encourages splits to happen. Forks are not really the same thing. I wouldn't consider these forks as they are a subject in their own right. Forks are generally another article split off about the same general topic. To quote A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. from WP:Content forking. General managers are a seperate and distinct topic from the team itself. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a really weak argument and a real stretching of the facts. These are the general managers of the teams, right? They are part of the staff. Eek, you make me want - to change my !vote to delete. ;-) The consensus is to keep, let it be. ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously they are related they are whats called a sub-topic, however a content fork is generally two topics about the same thing. A good example would be an article about the Edmonton Oilers Franchise and the Edmonton Oilers Team. Two different things, but for the most part almost identical topics where information is being replicated and redundant. Summary style on the other hand just makes a brief summary of part of the information and links to a more detailed page on the subtopic. Anyways I was just pointing out how this isn't a fork. This would be a content fork if we tried to keep the full list on both pages, that is the difference. I don't disagree they need to be cleaned up however. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep All: I note that the nom hasn't proferred a single valid policy ground for deletion. "Unnecessary" and "no reason" are personal opinions, and the ease - or lack thereof - of merger is likewise not a valid reason to delete an article.  At such time as the nom gives us a reason under deletion policy to delete, I'll be happy to help gauge whether the reason applies to these articles.  Until such time, I think a Speedy Keep's the only appropriate action to take.   Ravenswing  18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Invalid nom that has literally no argument. "It's unnecessary" "no reason" Being an admin gives you no excuse to flash WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT on an AFD rationale and expect us to eat it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodello (talk • contribs)
 * Keep No valid reason to delete them has been given here. GM's are the heads of their franchises, which is an accepted position for a list. Even if they are of poor quality, which many are, doesn't mean they have to be deleted. Finally, there is no deadline; Wikipedia is a work in progress and just because the articles are bad now doesn't mean someone will eventually get around to cleaning them up. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2010 (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.