Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL Draft steals


 * 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 of the debate was delete. –  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 10:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

List of NFL Draft steals
I have decided to renominate this to generate a clearer community consensus for lists of this type; A previous AfD failed on what perhaps could be considered a technicality. It seems to me that the term "steal" is much too subjective still, although the list has improved since it was nominated all the way back in October. If this AfD succeeds, we should take a look at similar sports lists, such as List of NFL Draft busts, List of NHL Draft steals, etc., so don't use the existence of those lists as a reason to keep this one. No vote. Grand master  ka  00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft and an indiscriminate collection of information. What on Earth is a "draft steal" anyway?  The article doesn't tell me. Brian G. Crawford 00:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Brian G. Crawford beat me too it, but after looking at List of NHL Draft steals, this entry (and List of NHL Draft steals, etc.) have to go. Even on the NHL entry, which purports to provide "qualifications" that are purportedly agreed to by fans (which fans?), the guidelines are far too subjective. I suggest that this is contrary to WP:NPOV. Fluit 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. By that token, AfD purports to provide guidelines for deletion which are purportedly agreed to by editors.  "Which" editors?  Us.  The entire nature of sports -- as with any other kind of media or entertainment -- is POV.  RGTraynor 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete, as it stands it's definitely NPOV. I disagree with some of the above, in the sense that one could make objective criteria for this sort of thing.  But it would be completely unworkable, as you'd need different criteria for each position, etc. etc.  I like the idea, but I don't think it's going to work.  Some of these could be forked to something like Quarterbacks selected low inthe draft who won Super Bowls or the like, but as it stands, this is too subjective, I'm sorry to say. --Deville (Talk) 01:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There are articles with less content, but much of this seems fundamentally non-encyclopedic. Amcfreely 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are articles that meet wikipedia standards on the topics on NFL craft busts and steals, but I've become increasingly skeptical of these two articles. These lists are too subjective, therefore energy should instead focus on articles on the topic istead of player lists.  young  american  (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Brian and YA (and surely Grandmasterka is correct that upon the disposition of this question ought to depend the disposition of other subjective sports lists). Joe 04:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that we cuold comment on it. I mean, it is a list after all.-- Tdxi a  ng  陈 鼎 翔  (Talk)  Contributions Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 06:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per above. `'mikka (t) 08:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete reluctantly does appear to be somewhat subjective. I'd prefer to keep this sort of information in a more usable manner though - perhaps relating it to some concrete evidence of quality such as Hall of Fame.  Busts is another matter, if a WikiProject could decide upon some level of qualification such as 1st rounder, or top 10 then this could easily be compared with longevity/success so as not to remove Ryan Leaf's claim to fame. MLA 09:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ter e nce Ong 10:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not a sports fan, but it seems to me that there is an article here, just as it is a surprise when a low-seeded player wins Wimbledon. The NFL draft is a sort of ranking of players, and occasionally someone way down at the bottom will prove to be a star; this would be a noteworthy detail about such a player, but also about the draft process itself. Surely it would be possible to present this information in an NPOV fashion, even if the article, as it presently stands, misses the point (it also fails to explain to the lay reader what it is about). ProhibitOnions 12:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Winning Wimbledon is an objective standard pretty much agreed upon by everyone as an "upset" in that event. Whata is the comparable objective standard for "career success" on this list? I suppose we could restrict it to Hall of Famers who were drafted on the second day or something like that... (ESkog)(Talk) 14:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If nothing else, this article suggests there might be merit in something along these lines, if you can come up with an objective standard. I defer to those of you who actually know something about football, though, and you might also reasonably conclude it can't be done. ProhibitOnions 18:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Content is pointless and article seems badly written. &rarr;bjorn the great t|c 16:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but article should define a "steal". --P199 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * delete. Neither NFL nor NFL Draft explains what they are.  (I might reconsider my vote if we get an article on NFL Draft steals.)  Austrian 21:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because the list is inherently subjective. Alternative: A list of Pro-Bowlers, record-holders, HOFers and award winners picked in the 4th round or lower (separated by round) might be an acceptable alternative as it includes objective criteria for low picks that succeeded beyond general expectations. -- Scientizzle 21:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly per User:Terence_Ong - dharm a bum 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, there are no objective criteria to define a "steal" (e.g., a second round QB with a season rating of 80 or higher? Why not 70? Or 90?).  Even media sports analysts can hardly be considered objective references, since they would disagree with one another. Any attempts to maintain a list like this are POV disasters waiting to happen. In that regard, I would say delete the other sports' lists mentioned above as well. -- Kinu  t /c  00:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kinu -- while most people would agree on a lot of those picks, Wikipedia is not sports talk radio. Haikupoet 01:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion from list. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - "A meaningless, opinionated list that isn't even complete? Yes PLEASE." TheImpossibleMan 07:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete. Most people who follow the sport would have a consensus definition of "steal" rather like Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" definition of obscenity. The contents of the list are a fairly reasonable application of that common-sense standard. The problem is not subjectivity so much as the problem is that the article is an indiscriminate collection of information, as noted above. DCB4W 15:09, 9 April 2006 (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.