Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott (ice hockey)


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Scott (ice hockey)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Turn of last century hockey player. Played one game for a prominent amateur team...maybe. Hard to tell, because we don't even know his name. Without some basic information about the person, it is impossible to verify or expand this article. Meeting WP:ATHLETE is not a guarantee of notability, and if there were ever an exception, surely this is it. Prodded by me, removed by creator without comment. gnfnrf (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions.   —Djsasso (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whilst this may appear in a sporting almanac, as the nominator points out, without a bit more to hang info on this can never achieve encyclopaedic status. Nuttah (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Delete. Strong Delete. Looks like someone just wrote about themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is highly unlikely that this is an autobiography. As the subject was playing ice hockey in 1904 they must be at least 104 years old (assuming they were playing straight out of the womb). ^_~
 * I don't know anything about this subject, but I will see if I can dig up any online sources. Road Wizard (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; without a first name it would tend to imply that nothing much has been written about him and for that matter we can't even be sure if it isn't several people called Scott written about separately. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because there is so little information provided about the subject. It seems unlikely that he's notable given that we don't even know a first name. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have trawled through a number of web pages in search of a biography or even a complete name, but all I can find is repeated reference to somebody named Scott playing on the team that won the Stanley Cup in 1904. There is no reference that I can find to him being in the team either before December 1903 or after 1904. I would normally suggest a merge with the most relevant article (which in this case appears to be 1904 CAHL season), however the single verifiable fact is already included there. Road Wizard (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete impossible to verify. Tavix (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ATHLETE and the comments above, expecially Road Wizard's  abf  /talk to me/  10:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What part of WP:ATHLETE as he was on a Stanley Cup winning team which is the highest level of hockey there is. -Djsasso (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.  Black  ngold29   23:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wait a minute here, even if this biography article is far from complete it meets WP:V and WP:ATHLETE. We have articles for non existing players but a player who played on a Stanley Cup winning team is not notable? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per my rationale above. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 00:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The key problem is not that it is unverifiable or not notable as the fact that "Somebody named Scott played for the team that won the Stanley cup in 1904" is easily verifiable. The problem is what can you add to that? The single fact is already covered by the 1904 CAHL season article. If you can provide a full name, a date of birth or even a favourite colour then this article will add value above the season article, but as it stands you will have a single line of text that cannot be expanded any further.
 * Deletion is not a permanent state. If this article is deleted at the end of this discussion and you later stumble across some more substantial information then there is nothing to stop you recreating the article. Road Wizard (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia is not paper and a small article is better than no article. -Djsasso (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * True to an extent, but a rule of thumb suggests that articles shorter than 1 KB should be merged with a related article. Road Wizard (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That hockey player is notable because he is imaginary. Also, being fictional, he has completely different notability standards (which he passes, because multiple reliable sources have written about the draft pick substantively.) gnfnrf (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I would have to agree with Krm500, playing on a Stanley Cup championship team is by far a great enough achievement to meet WP:N and by comments above he clearly meets WP:V even if we have a hard time finding decent sources because it happened so long ago it. The article clearly needs work but it should not be deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If better sources can be provided (such as page numbers) and the article can be cleaned up (the blatant "Note" at the bottom needs removed to the talk page), as well as more specific info (like his last name perhaps) then I can see the rationale behind keeping the article and would be willing to change my delete, but these things need done first.  Black  ngold29   03:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on most of this, that being said I think Scott is his last name, its his first name we are missing. -Djsasso (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sorry, but if a person's full name can't even be verified, then there is no way to pass WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS. The sources are very clearly trivial mentions, nothing more, otherwise we would know more than the fact that someone named Scott played a hockey game in 1904. Resolute 06:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE. Won the Stanley Cup, which is the highest honor in all of ice hockey. The fact that his first name has been lost over the last 104 years is irrelevant. --Smashvilletalk 13:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ottowa defended the Stanley Cup four times that season (remember, back then, the Cup could change hands in challenge matches at any time), but I see no evidence that the one game Scott played in was in any of those series. So, while he was on a Stanley Cup winning team, I don't think he "won the Stanley Cup." gnfnrf (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete He was apparently an amateur player, which is non-notable, and no evidence exists that he played FOR the cup, just played one game during their season. If he played in one of winning series games, then that would be one thing, but there is no evidence that shows that.  -Pparazorback (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Too be fair, at the time, there were no professional leagues, and the Ottawa Senators were members of the highest amateur league. He doesn't fail WP:ATHLETE for this reason.  Resolute 05:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not sure which way to go.  I looked through a few books I own and have found Scott on the winning squad for Ottawa in 1904.  One source doesn't list him (The Stanley Cup Story by Henry Roxborough).  The question really comes down to this; did Scott actually appear in a game or not?  I know when Total Hockey came out in the 1990's that they deleted a few players from the official record in the NHL because they never appeared in a game (they also added a few but more were deleted).  If we can verify he appeared in a game, the article should be Kept because he would have played a game in the top level of hockey at the time.  Patken4 (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is a sub-stub with no hope for additional expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (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.