Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NHL 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep (see my talk for full explanation) Wikibofh 17:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

List of NHL Draft Steals
Delete This page should be deleted for a few reasons. 1) It is a matter of opinion 2)It has no formula or clear, precise definition about the difference between what makes Player A a steal and Player B not 3)different users have different opinions on who should belong on the list and who shouldn't, and therefore this article is easily disputable. If there ever can be a set formula for this article, it would be a great article because it is an interesting topic, but it just isn't fact enough to be considered in an encyclopedia Croat Canuck 04:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep yes, sometimes it can be disputable for who goes on this list, but most of the time it is pretty obvious. Before this article was made, the original author posted an inquiry here about whether people thought it was a POV subject or not. That discussion can now be found here. Croat Canuck, I am wondering why you didn't post your concerns on the talk page to the draft steals article. If you had, I am sure that the users involved could have come up with a more exact definition of which players should be included and which ones should be excluded. Masterhatch 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep & merge the introductory paragraphs with NHL Entry Draft --Anetode 05:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The very fact that the opening sentence admits the topic is by nature unencyclopedic makes, to me at least, a very compelling argument for excluding it from Wikipedia. Croat Canuck's concerns regarding its seemingly arbitrary inclusion criteria are also influencing me.  Finally, I'm not moved by the fact that it's part of a wikiproject, as I don't think the fact that an entry's editors have formally grouped themselves together with a collective name entitles them or their articles to a looser reading of WP:NOT, particularly section 1.7 and the overarching principle that Wikipedia is not to become an indiscriminate collection of information.  Cruft is cruft, and being part of a wikiproject doesn't, or at least I believe shouldn't be treated as some sort of imprimatur on cruft.  The Literate Engineer 06:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that this article will need to list verifiable sources saying that player A has performed much better than anticipated at a draft and is a steal. The criteria for determining who and who is not a steal also needs to be tightened up as it seems arbitrary at the moment. For example, players from the Soviet Union are excluded for reasons that don't seem obvious to me. Capitalistroadster 07:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a list with POV criteria. I don't know enough about hockey to know if this has anything worth merging; if it does, merge it whereever. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: IF this list gets deleted, then this (List of NFL Draft Steals) should too. Masterhatch 08:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete the NFL article, i'm putting it on AfD now. I'm somewhere between Delete and Rewrite on the NHL article. Alot of work was put into it, and it can be salvaged, but right now it reads like an essay, it has a POVish title, if it were shorter I think any decent content could be merged without much rancor. Clean up the title and the essayish sounding parts, and I'll move to Keep. Otherwise, Delete from me. Karmafist 14:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep For those of you who just jumped in on the bandwagon to delete this page, I am the original author that Masterhatch talked about in his statement. Even though I have forseen this arguement about the whole POV factor, it seems that I was unprepared for the onslaught of *Delete statements on this discussion. Let me try to explain myself as clear as possible. I added this list onto wikipedia because I thought that this would be considered as an "educational tool" for the newer fans who did not know a bust from an apple or a steal from a pear. Yes, there are times where an addition to this list is debatable, but I personally feel that the ones I added were core components to successful teams (I'm talking about a playoff run... so don't add Bob Kudelski on this list) and were or are solid players at the NHL level. For an effort to fix this list (from disputable additions), I will find any players that I feel are debatable additions and will post them up on the discussion board for the people to vote upon (I will try to do several of these after I post this message). Hopefully, I explained this list's purpose on Wikipedia and persuaded a few people to change their minds about this list. I am surprised by the deletion or the list. Not because of why it's being deleted, but it about who is deleting this list. If you look at this list's history, you will see that Croat Canuck contributed to list a little less than a month ago. Seemingly ironic, he added a handful of extremely debatable steals himself (which I swiftly deleted, as I explained why I deleted them on my user discussion page). Hossmann 20:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Even the title itself is POV. --Nlu 23:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherently POV, unsalvageable article. MCB 23:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per CroatCanuck's reasoning. I'm a hockey fan, and I understand very well how the likes of Dominik Hasek and Martin St. Louis deserve notability for being tremendous players while going under the eyes of scouts, but there's no way to write this kind of article without abandoning empiricism in favour of opinion.  I suppose you could do something like "members of the Hockey Hall of Fame drafted in the second half of the NHL Draft" and that would be legit, but this article isn't. -The Tom 00:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV from the very first sentence: "The definition of a "steal" in terms of the NHL draft is hard to truly implement on an encyclopedia". Any article which spends several paragraphs giving instructions on how to edit doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Rhobite 02:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. The very nature of sports involves superlatives that can be considered a matter of opinion, between players and teams widely believed to be "great" or "mediocre" and the subjectivity of performance in general.  That being said, there is in fact a reasonable consensus opinion, undisputed in the discussions taking place concerning the article, and a similar consensus in the hockey community at large.  RGTraynor 06:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm as big a sports fan as anybody, but this is too subjective without criteria, ergo unencyclopedic. Xoloz 12:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep ccwaters 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not POV, if a player was drafted low and has a good career, then it is pretty clear cut --Rogerd 03:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please objectively define "low" and "good." You just used two very subjective terms in a supposedly objective statement. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jkelly 04:22, 18 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.