Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of oldest NHL players

This article was never a violation of WP:NOT#INFO in a million years, and 'delete but you can recreate it under a different name if you want' is hardly a great way to WP:PRESERVE information. The nomination reason was simply an outrageous throwaway comment, it is a travesty such obviously poorly considered nominations are not thrown out on basic principle, because as we see here, it is all too easy to have massive amounts of data destroyed because a few people manage to type 5 word delete reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Massive amounts of data" haven't been "destroyed" - they're the same place they were when the article was created. Claiming that the Delete proponents tossed in nothing but five word responses is not only inaccurate (most of us used full paragraphs or more) but insulting.  The nature of consensus is that sometimes you're on the wrong side of it, and demonstrably the great majority of editors - as well as veterans of the Hockey Wikiproject - disagreed with you.   Ravenswing  16:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What has being a veteran of a Wikiproject got to do with anything? If anything, it is Hockey Wikiproject members that are culpable for not properly sourcing such an obviously non-trivial collection of information, whose deletion rationale was disproveable in seconds. Consensus is irrelant frankly, consensus cannot override policy or common sense. MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel the result ran against policy, WP:DRV is that way. If you want a copy of the deleted article moved to a user page for you to cleanup and improve, I am happy to do so for you.  That being said, I would still love to see the evidence showing someone who happened to play in the NHL lived to an old age is notable. Resolute 22:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence? I put some right there in the Afd, where it's supposed to go. It was seemingly ignored. DRV in this case would be the classic Afd2 cakewalk everybody likes to pretend DRV is not. Userfication? I've got better things to work on if it's just me working on it. It's gone, I'm just commenting to make sure anyone who comes across this Afd in future knows that it was disputed, and why. MickMacNee (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, your "evidence" - which consisted solely of a four-sentence newswire blurb - wasn't ignored. That scanty obituary just didn't convince us of anything.  However hard this is to fathom, sometimes people just don't agree with your take on things, and your attempt to turn this into a blame game - excuse me, I'm supposed to try to source an article I believe ought to be deleted? - is inappropriate at best.   Ravenswing  04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So is claiming you membership of a Project gives you any weight in saying you don't like the article. Nobody said anything about the source, I am not a mind reader, so yes, you ignored it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a member of a pertinent Wikiproject - I am "claiming" nothing - gives some notion that I might not only know what I'm talking about, but have a notion how people interested in an overall subject tend to handle things. Now given that you haven't made a single edit in articlespace for a hockey article at least this calendar year, I can see very well why you'd want to discredit the expertise of the Wikiproject.  But while I also know that picking fights and ignoring arguments you dislike are part of your history, your speculation as to what the hockey world finds notable or not doesn't seem to be founded in much in the way of actual knowledge.  No doubt anyone seeking out this talk page to review your dissent can take that into account as well.    Ravenswing  00:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to fall back on personal attacks and irrelevance, that's fine, but your claim that I engage in 'speculation' whereas you know what 'hockey people' are interested in is pretty ludicrous given the fact I brought a source to the debate that discredits this utter garbage of an opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You do understand that your source you refer to is for the death of a Hockey Hall of Fame member. While he played in 490 games, he played in an era where teams played 48 games a season.  In addition, he won a Stanley Cup, played 10 seasons, and was the career leader in penalty minutes upon his retirement.  Compare this to other players, like Reg Mackey, that won't get the same publicity upon their death.  These players, who only played a few games at the NHL level, will maybe get a mention in a small, local newspaper or their obituary will only say in passing that the individual played in the NHL. Patken4 (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot destroy a whole list just because you think some of the entries will not be as notable as others. Notability does not limit article content, only article topics. MickMacNee (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the current issue. However I will say that notability most certainly does limit article content. We don't cover just anything, it needs to be significant. Again I am arguing regarding the principal and this should not be applied to the current argument beyond what influence that principals have. Chillum  02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't see what the Reg Mackey comment has to do with anything.  Reg Mackey is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article, so certainly for a list, and we surely won't ignore his death when it gets reported. Rlendog (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't either of you go find a source with Reg Mackey's obituary then? The only source I have is that he is deceased.  To be included in a list saying that Reg Mackey is one of the longest lived NHL players, there must be proof that he actually lived long.  He was born in 1900 and his last record of playing professionally was in 1934.  The source I have saying he is deceased was published in 1998.  So he was anywhere from 34 to 98 when he died.  For the list to be complete and accurate, there must be references showing that someone meets the criteria of the list.  This isn't talking about whether Reg Mackey deserves an article.  He played professionally, that alone means Reg Mackey is notable.  But so far, no proof has been presented showing that Reg Mackey was one the longest lived NHL players.  Patken4 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My "five word delete reason" was actually 101 words more than that. The data wasn't destroyed.  Administrators can still go out and get the lost "massive amounts of data" for you, if you really want to work on it.  Then again, you're ignoring what a lot of people, including myself and Ravenswing, said about the article; that it was wholly incorrect and very inaccurate.  It took me longer to find my copy of Total Hockey than it did to prove that almost the entire list was wrong and out of date.  In situations where the article was as inaccurate and poor as this, it is best to delete and start over again.  There were players on the list who if they were still alive would be the oldest persons on the planet.  There were players who have been dead for at least 10 years, but were listed as alive.  Patken4 (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it can hardly be recreated if nobody knows it ever existed, or worse, when it is recreated, people cite this Afd as consensus that we don't allow such 'trivia'. I think you'll find 'rip it up and start again' is not in any policy, (see WP:PRESERVE), because it does not help improve articles one bit. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think anyone who reads the AfD would be stupid enough to think that there was an overwhelming consensus against this article. There were two major arguments against it: one group, of which I am part, said it was irrelevant trivia. Another said the content was garbage, but not the idea.  It stands to reason that if someone improved the content, that second group would slide to keep, and any subsequent AfD would have a different outcome.  In the end, it seems you'd rather just whine about consensus flowing against you this time than working on addressing the concerns raised. I would point out that that does not help improve articles one bit either. Resolute 22:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You can call it whining if it makes you feel any better, I'm really not bothered. Time will tell if your observation of how the Wiki works is more accurate than mine. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of talking about the result of the deletion, you could actually improve the article. The data has been saved and is located at User:Marc87/Hockey.  Of course, it still isn't all that accurate.  Ellie Pringle, the second oldest living NHL player according to the list, is deceased according to Total Hockey.  I didn't check any of the other players listed as living.  Patken4 (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm, you're being quite vehement for someone who's really not bothered. Of course, while your belief system is your own, and not really any of our affair, how Wikipedia works will manage on its own ... governed by that pesky "consensus" thing you're down on.   Ravenswing  17:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already covered the issue of consensus, pay attention, do more reading of the discussion and less of this juvenile crap. MickMacNee (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The closing admin actually covered the issue of consensus. Once again, if you disagree with their interpretation of this AfD, go to DRV.  If you think there is value to the data, work on improving it so that it wouldn't face deletion.  If you'd rather ineffectively complain, well, feel free.   I'll be moving onto more productive things now. Resolute 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a .sig I use on VBulletin-based forums that permit it. It runs "It's not that I don't understand you.  It's that I don't agree with you.  What about this distinction is so hard to grasp?"  You already let us know you thought the concept of consensus was BS, so it's little enough surprise that you equate failure to agree with you with lack of understanding, but I'm afraid our comeuppance will have to wait until you're elected the Dictator of Wikipedia and can remold it all in your image.  Good luck with that.   Ravenswing  19:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you ever get around to representing what I said accurately, I might bother responding further. As it is now, it seems utterly pointless to try and tell you anything, as you are clearly not listening. MickMacNee (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So instead of actually improving the article and doing anything with the data that has been found, you've spent the last eight days talking about the result? Patken4 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The data was presented merely as a quick rebuttal of the Afd nomination, it was not the beginning of an improvement drive. I am not wasting my time either franticly trying to improve a massive list in 7 days at Afd, or to work on an offline draft on my own for presentation at DRV where the same flawed arguments will just be presented again. It's gone permanently because of the entertaining of this flawed Afd nomination, which was my point at the beginning of this section. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The data is NOT gone. You just ignored the fact it has been found at User:Marc87/Hockey.  Instead of improving the data that has been found and providing references for the list, you have instead spent more time talking about the result.  Nine days have passed since you started this crusade.  That's nine days that could have been better spent on improving the article.  Patken4 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the deletion policies, if it only needed improvement, it should never have been deleted in the first place. As you are concerned with my time management, if you must know I would rather spend my time here on real articles than improving drafts that have this Afd in their history. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the deletion policies. How do you improve an article where the vast majority of it is wrong and which is very difficult, if not impossible, to source?  If I went and simply deleted the wrong data, there would hardly be any data left. Patken4 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I doubt you checked enough of it to be able to make that statement with any confidence of fact, and secondly, I am willing to bet that even if you did remove all incorrect material, there would still be enough to be considered a valid stub article. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First, since you seem to think of yourself as the dean of all things related to deletion policy, I'll just ignore your comment. Second, 14 of the top 15 people on the list on August 26 were dead according a book published in 1998.  This book is considered to be the official encyclopedia of the National Hockey League, so I would say it is pretty accurate.  No other checks were done on anyone else on the list, but if the top 15 on the list are dead, and this is supposed to list the top living NHL players, one can safely assume that many others on the list have also ceased to be.  Somehow, I don't think a list of a few people without any references, and not much confidence that it's accurate, is going to be kept.  Patken4 (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm done, you aren't getting it at all I'm afraid, and are now resorting to insults as well. Saying anything more is just going to be a waste of my time. MickMacNee (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)