Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of players who played only one game in the NHL (3rd 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. (non-admin closure)  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

List of players who played only one game in the NHL
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Reading through the first two AFD's for this article, the discussion fails to take into account any of WIkipedia's notability policies or guidelines. The past discussions seemed to overlook these glaring issues and focused too much on how difficult it is to maintain or other unrelated issues. This discussion should focus on whether there are sufficient third-party, reliable sources to establish notability per Wikipedia's notability policies and guidelines. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 16:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is a standalone list, so WP:LISTN comes into play. WP:LISTN says that "Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source." It also says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." This is clearly not met. The only sources in the article are NHL.com, HockeyDB.com and a now dead LegendsofHockey.net (which appears to be the Hockey HoF now). These are sports database sources or self-published. They are not independent, third-party reliable sources that establish the topic of "people who played one NHL game" as being a notable topic.
 * Since WP:LISTN doesn't seem to be met, we can look at WP:GNG. However, a simple search shows no reliable sources covering the topic of "people who have played one NHL game". It is not something that is discussed or analyzed in third-party, reliable news sources.
 * This also fails WP:NOTSTATS, as it is simply a regurgitation of a database query on HockeyDB and NHL.com. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 16:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The previous discussions 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 ) 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , neither of these sources establish notability of the list topic. They are sports almanacs whose sole purpose is to document every statistic. "External sources" are not third-party, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 16:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that the hockey DB page is definitely reliable, and the linked page is not documentation of a random stat but a presentation of a topic as evidenced by the title of the page.18abruce (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not saying HockeyDB is not reliable. Its a sports almanac. Just because information exists, doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a sports alamanc. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 17:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously. Here is a book by a reputable author dedicated solely to this topic. A whole book, not just a mention.  There are many other sources that satisfy GNG for this, as evidenced by the sourcing for Ken Reid's book.18abruce (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will admit, this is the first step in the right direction. If a few more of these types of sources are found, then I will gladly withdraw the nomination. But one book that documents interviews with 39 of the people on this list of ~400 people doesn't establish notability by itself, especially when that source is not available to see what it actually says. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 17:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This list meets WP:LISTN via 18abruce's sourcing it to a book about 1 game NHL players, which would make the list notable per: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Other sources referring to this as a group include this article by the Detroit News and by the The Globe and Mail. snood1205 18:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Beyond the reasons tendered above, there's another important purpose to the list. It's been a constant issue on Wikipedia for many years the degree to which sports-related biographies dominate -- one in seven bios are of soccer players alone.  Sentiment and consensus are slowly catching up to the letter of NSPORTS, which holds that the various criteria for inclusion are presumptive, that biographical articles need to meet the GNG, and that the many instances where little to nothing is known about a player save that they played (say) a single game for Hamilton in 1923 should no more qualify a subject for an independent article than, (say) being an an otherwise unremarkable member of a band should. A catch-all list article is a perfectly valid target for such redirects.  Removing such articles sabotages the whole notion, and instead of a handful of similar list articles, you have many thousands of sub-stub bios.   Ravenswing      18:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with this sentiment, but every person on this list has an article; there's not a single redirect here from a name. If Brian Murphy (ice hockey) and Harry Bell (ice hockey) are redirected here it would be worth keeping, but it's otherwise not the case. Reywas92Talk 19:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When I created this article many years ago, my thought was to list the players with a short career summary without the need to create an article for each one. Over the years, though, editors created articles for each player anyway. Masterhatch (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted by Ravenswing, consensus has changed in the last couple years, and I expect that most of the stand-alone articles for one-game players in the early days of the NHL lack SIGCOV and would be deleted in today's stricter environment. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And, probably, eventually will be.   Ravenswing     20:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there's enough sources and need for an article of this sort. Masterhatch (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons noted at Articles for deletion/List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929), including the following:
 * First, and as pointed out by User:Ravenswing, the list is useful as an alternative to deletion. One-game players, especially in the NHL's early years, did not receive the type of SIGCOV needed to support stand-alone articles. Despite this fact, sub-stubs have proliferated about these one-game players. Many such articles would be best dealt with by way of a redirect to this list.
 * Second, the topic of one-game players or "cup of coffee" players (both in the NHL and other pro sports) does receive substantial attention.
 * Third, WP:NOTSTATS is NOT a rationale for deletion here. NOTSTATS covers "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." Here, the list is not a mere regurgitation of confusing or unexplained stats.
 * Fourth, WP:NLIST expressly states that "notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." NLIST also goes on to say: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This list fulfills all three of these purposes: information, navigation, and development. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've over the last year or two, moved toward deleting lists articles, as trivia. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just like musical big brothers Lists of one-hit wonders, it's notable trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. An entire book on the topic is enough SIGCOV. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There have been entire books on the topic, which definitely makes this meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2022 (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.