Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vegas Golden Knights 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 redirect to Vegas Golden Knights. WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:CRYSTAL carry the policy based arguments. No prejudice for recreation once enough content that can be supported by reliable sources becomes available for a standalone list. Mkdw talk 06:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Vegas Golden Knights general managers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The WP:PAGENAME uses the term "list" however, the team has had only one general manager. A list would require more than one. Meatsgains (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect (to Vegas Golden Knights, see my 2nd comment) This should already be deleted solely on the grounds of WP:CRYSTALBALL. The proposed team doesnt even exist at this moment. So while the actual team may be notable (a glance at the main article indicates this at least), this list article does certainly not have any claim for existence. Per WP:LISTBIO we would need sources which discusses the list subjects as whole but this is not the case. This isnt even a list for the members of the team, it is a list for the "general managers". They have one manager and there is just no reason for such an obscure list for one person, especially since this list very likely wont get expanded for quite some time and even if it does it would then just become a 2 or 3 item list. This list article therefore doesnt really have any justification for existance and should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: The team certainly does exist, Dead Mary's assertion notwithstanding, but this "list" is badly premature. Barring disaster, it'll be a couple years at the absolute minimum for there to be as much as a second GM.   Ravenswing   20:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well they exist as entity but they are still in the process of being formed and plan to play their first games next year. :P Dead Mary (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per my nomination statement. For it to be a list, there needs to be more than one GM to list. The page is WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't format subsequent comments as if they are additional !votes, as this can only cause confusion as to the quantity of support a proposal has; you've already made your deletion nomination. postdlf (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Vegas Golden Knights. We'll need this eventually once there's more than one GM, and the article history will prove useful. Plus it's a plausible search term if someone doesn't know the franchise has only had one GM in its history. But it doesn't need its own article yet. Smartyllama (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep We already do this for another team in the NHL and have done so for many years, it is part of a series of articles and thus shouldn't be deleted. A list of one is still a list. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Having similar articles on other teams is not an argument per WP:OTHERSTUFF. It may be true true that in the future this article may be needed (in a couple of years) and it also may be true that technically a list with one entry is a "list", but in the present this article has basically 0 substance and is completely unwarranted. "List of managers of xyz" is not notable when there has been only one manager, we are not a directory. Especially since it is very likely it will stay for the next years this way. However, I think a redirect may indeed be more appropriate to keep the pages history, so the article /may/ be recreated in a couple of years. Dead Mary (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per DJSasso. Also keep in mind George McPhee is identified as the team's acting general manager in news articles, not as "who will be" the GM at a certain point. While he is currently barred from signing players and making trades until spring/early summer, he is hiring people and overseeing the scouting of professional and amateur leagues. --Parkfly20 (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect I'm not against this being kept but it does seem to be a little early. Deadman137 (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect If every other team has such an article as DJSasso says, then it makes sense to keep this article title in existence as a redirect. But until there's more than a couple of names on the list, it should just be a table on the team top page. Aspirex (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2016 (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.