Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NHL draft busts


 * 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 busts
Nomination: For same reasons that List of NHL Draft Steals should be deleted (and for the sake of consistency), this should be deleted. Specifically, 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. 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. This, I feel, is essentially cruft, and cruft is cruft, and being part of a wikiproject shouldn't be treated as some sort of imprimatur on cruft. The Literate Engineer 18:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV-based distinction, no matter how lengthy the lead-in text is and how many italicized phrases it contains. -The Tom 00:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, same as NHL draft steals. Inherent POV. Rhobite 02:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, same as NHL draft steals. However, this is a bit different because the criteria can be changed very easily too something along the lines of "this is a list of first-round draft picks who failed to play at least 50 games in the NHL". Croat Canuck 03:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep While I agree that it can sometimes be difficult to determine which players belong on this list, there are plenty of players that can only be described as "Draft Busts". For example, can you really call Neil Brady any thing but a draft bust? While this article borders on POV, I feel that there are enough relevant players who belong on this list to make it NPOV. Is it possible to keep this if it was cleaned up and strong criteria was set for players to be included? I really think that this is a relevant list. For an example of an irrelevant list see here List of oldest MLB players. Now that list is unneccessary and POV. Masterhatch 03:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of Sports Flops better off there --JAranda &#124; watz sup 04:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * comment How on God's good green Earth is List of Sports Flops not up for deletion? How is it that Sports Flops are less POV than NHL Draft Busts? Let's compare: "List of Sports Flops": an incomplete simple list of players from many leagues with no stats or other information vs. "List of NHL Draft Busts": an almost complete list of which the players' stats are mentioned and a comparision to other players from the same year is made. I say clean-up the NHL draft busts article and keep it. List of Sports Flops survived the deletion process, so I have hope for this article surving. Masterhatch 06:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for pointing out the sports flops list to me, yall. I'll be giving that its second nomination shortly.  The Literate Engineer 15:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: if the list of NHL (NFL) draft busts have to go, then so do all of these List of commercial failures, List of flops in entertainment, List of military disasters, List of political flops, List of famous failures in science and engineering, and List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming. There is already a precendent set on Wikipedia for this kind of thing. Why are sports exempt? While the NFL list needs a lot of work, the NHL list is pretty good. With some criteria setting, I see no reason why this list can't be kept! The aforementioned lists are just as valid as a list of draft busts. A player drafted 2nd overall who plays only 10 games and scores nothing can't be anything but a bust. Let's be consistent and either keep all or delete all. If it isn't POV to list video game flops, then it definately isn't POV to list Draft Busts. Masterhatch 17:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per The Literate Engineer. -- Kjkolb 08:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV. --fvw *  04:09, 17 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 06:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject list without criteria, ergo unencyclopedic. Xoloz 12:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I understand that some of the busts on this list may be debatable, but I feel that this isn't POV because the definition of a bust is pretty much solidified. For example, everyone believes that Brian Lawton, Doug Wickenheiser, and Alexandre Daigle are nothing but busts (although some could say that Daigle may be redeemed due to his comeback with Minnesota) and all of these players have had, in some cases, successful careers. Why are they busts? They are busts because, as the definition on the Draft Bust page says, they are "A first-round draft pick who has failed to live up to the expectations levyed upon the player when their respective team drafted him" At the same time, players like Jason Bonsignore, Alexandre Volchkov, and Neil Brady are busts for obvious reasons (like failing to solidify a spot on an NHL roster at any time in his NHL career). As you can see, the bust is pretty much a solid definition and there isn't much of a range for POV. The steal, however, is a different story and has caused uproar on this site. I believe the first sentence of the paragraph is pretty misleading. If I have time, i'll change it. --Hossmann 23:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep ccwaters 23:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV. Jkelly 00:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Even fvw and Rhobite thinks it needs to go. Ryan Norton T 02:12, 20 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.