Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/History of the National Hockey League (1917–42)

History of the National Hockey League (1917–42)
This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Today's featured article/requests.


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add   to the top of the discussion and   at the bottom, then complete a new TFAR nom underneath.

The result was: not scheduled (withdrawn at nominator's request)



The early history of the National Hockey League (NHL) began with the league's founding in 1917 following the demise of its predecessor league, the National Hockey Association (NHA) when a majority of the NHA franchises (the Montreal Canadiens, Montreal Wanderers, Ottawa Senators and Quebec Bulldogs) suspended the NHA and formed the new NHL. The NHL's first quarter-century saw the league compete against two rival major leagues, the Pacific Coast Hockey Association and Western Canada Hockey League, for players and the Stanley Cup. The NHL first expanded into the United States in 1924 with the founding of the Boston Bruins, and by 1926 consisted of ten teams in Ontario, Quebec, the Great Lakes region, and the Northeastern United States. At the same time, the NHL emerged as the only major league and the sole competitor for the Stanley Cup. The game itself continued to evolve during this time. Numerous innovations to the rules and equipment were put forward as the NHL sought to improve the flow of the game and make the sport more fan-friendly. The Great Depression and World War II reduced the league to six teams by 1942.


 * Proposing this for January 19 as the date when the NHL is scheduled to begin play: so it has date relevence (1 point). Article was promoted to FA status over two years ago (2 points).  I don't believe a hockey story has run in the past 6 months (I scanned the list and didn't find one) (2 points).  I know this is a bit of a short turnaround, but if there's nothing else scheduled, perhaps this would work?  -- Jayron  32  07:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sports did, though. A couple days before this request, so that's -2 points actually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving this to the non-specific date request for further discussion, as January 19 was scheduled for U2 3D more than 48 hours before this request was added. -1 points (2 year FA, -3 points for a sports article on Jan 14 so within a fortnight of the next currently open slot, Jan 22 - we don't say hockey, football, cricket, swimming etc are all different for points purposes otherwise we could run four or five sports articles back to back and claim they were all different, when they're all sports). Having said that, the sports in question are cricket and ice hockey, sports with different global fanbases, so the clash could be worse... NB a couple of deadlinks in the article could do with fixing: see report. BencherliteTalk 11:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, please withdraw the nomination. It was mainly contingent upon posting something hockey related to coincide with the start of the season, but if it isn't going to run on that date, I have no particular need to see this on the main page.  Sure, it could run any time, but having a hockey article for the first day of the season would have been nice.  Given the problems in nailing down a starting date for the season, yesterday (when I made the request) was literally the earliest anyone knew when the season would start, so it wasn't possible to make the request for a specific date earlier than that.  Unless it would be possible to bump the current scheduled January 19th article, then this nomination is moot.  If it is possible to bump the currently scheduled nomination, I would still suggest we do that.  But if not, no big whoop.  -- Jayron  32  14:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)