Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of players who played only one game in the NHL (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

List of players who played only one game in the NHL
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I still say this is an arbitrary list. Playing in the NHL is a significant distinction. Playing PRECISELY ONE game in the NHL is arbitrary. This list is horrendously fluid; people are continually being added for playing their 1st game and removed for playing their 2nd. Arbitrary list gotta go. p b  p  14:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  p  b  p  14:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that this was previously nominated for deletion before, by the same editor, with the result as keep.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The previous discussion illustrated why this is a notable grouping of players. Significant external sources maintain lists of these players, including HockeyDB and the Hockey Hall of Fame. The list is well-maintained and well-sourced. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The previous discussion lays out quite well why this is a notable topic. The list is kept up to date and sourced. Not at all arbitrary as it is specifically one game. It is a stat that even the Hockey Hall of Fame tracks and is the subject of news articles fequently. Like last time this appears to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * keep Originally when I created this article, I had put a point that it has to be 5 years from last game to present, to avoid, as pbp mentions, players continually being added and removed. I still feel it is an important list that groups a very specific group of people. Making it to the "show" is a great achievement, even if it's only for one game. Masterhatch (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * keep per the excellent rationale of Tavix. The list is relevant and useful to our readers. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Reading both the first and this one, I am a firm believer that this is notable because with certain hockey resources have this type of resource as one of their pages which might this page eligible for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me remind everybody that "This is notable" doesn't refute my original deletion rationale, which is based on WP:NOT. Let me also point out how unusual this list is for Wikipedia.  Compare 300 save club...the list includes everybody who has 300 OR MORE saves.  You gain notability by playing a game in the NHL; you don't lose notability for playing a second game.  p  b  p  13:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You claimed it was arbitrary, people have pointed out how it is not arbitrary. One game is a very defined point. Like a one hit wonder (ie Lists of one-hit wonders). You don't lose notability by playing two games, but you might be more notable for only playing one compared to playing two. Lists are about the group as a whole, not the individual items on the list, so much so that there is no requirement that items on a given list have to be notable enough to have their own article just the subject of the list itself. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, subject passes WP:LISTN. Flibirigit (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The list meets our criteria for inclusion; WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I really wish people would stop making the claim that I only nominated this because I didn't like it. I nominated this because it flies in the face of how the scope of Wikipedia lists are almost always defined.  p  b  p  22:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it doesn't. I linked to one such list above. I can link you to many many more. This is a very normal type of list. -DJSasso (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarityfiend explained better than I could in the last AfD why precisely one game has particular significance and linked to a number of list articles that focus on precisely one event. And that is backed up in this case by reliable sources that also maintain lists of one game, but not two games or other amounts. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per others. In fact, playing a game for the NHL passes WP:NHOCKEY. ミラP 00:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but so does playing two, 537, or any other number of games. The issue I have with this list is that it's limited to playing EXACTLY one game, which is no more notable than playing any other positive number of games.  p  b  p  01:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, poor horse. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Aside from the lists above, there is at least one book that focuses on the topic, which further demonstrates notability. I'll also note that perhaps it would be better served to update after the conclusion of each season (to avoid constant changes), the fact it is seemingly kept updated on a regular basis is impressive. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think the list is arbitrary but it must be prone to some arbitrary upkeep, as when a player makes his second appearance. That isn't enough of a reason to delete it, though, because by definition it passes WP:NHOCKEY. My main reason for keeping it is that it would and should provide a very useful method, right across the whole of sports coverage, of acknowledging single appearance performers who lack the necessary GNG for a dedicated article. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2019 (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.