Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Assessment

Examples
For the examples of articles of each class, wouldn't it be an idea to have in-project articles serve as your examples? (e.g. New Jersey Devils or Fighting in ice hockey for FA-class; Al Iafrate or Brandon Wheat Kings for Stub-class) Doogie2K (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That table is a standard table across all of wikipedia. I suppose we could create our own table but that would just be replicating this one which is standardized. -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured List
Should FL be added to the list of available classes here and in the Ice hockey project template? I believe it's on a par with FA, but for list articles rather than full-blown articles. --JD554 (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never noticed this comment here but, I did add FL a month or so back. So it is there now. -Djsasso (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Request
I am requesting the article Dauphin Kings to be rated again. It has been expanded considerably and is past a stub. --Daniel (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal:Importance criteria for wp:hockey articles
(copied from WT:HOCKEY)

I tried to be more discriminating for 'Top', which might help in the KHL vs. NHL comparison, but it's just a start. Should this go to the WikiProject Ice Hockey/Assessment page instead? ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 17:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And here comes the subjectivity problem: I would not consider all HHOFers to be "top" priority articles. Many I wouldn't even consider high.  Gretzky, Richard and Vezina? Sure.  Lemieux, Orr and Howe, ok.  After that? No.  Top should be restricted to only the most important articles.  I would even say to set a hard cap: Say 50 articles total.  If you want to add one, you have to remove another.  Hello arguments.   Same with high.  College teams are regional interest at best.  I wouldn't put them above mid.  Award winners and players who have had long NHL careers I would not automatically assume as high either.  Like top, I think High should be smallish.  Most articles should fall in the low to mid category, but this is something we could debate forever. Resolute 17:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This basically sums up why I have been hesitant in the past about Importance ratings. There are so many points of view on it that it becomes crazy. Atleast with quality assement you can have atleast a somewhat stable guide. But there are far too many variables when it comes to importance. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You get around subjectivity by using some 'achievement' criteria. That's why I used championships to elevate a team in a category. I'm not sure how to separate hall of famers. Greater than X times named an all-star? It does not have to be your opinion, it's a framework for the Wiki 1.0 folks. &#x0298;  alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, but where the opinion comes in is choosing the number that X represents. But yes I will think more on this. The other example I gave I only thought about in like 3 or 4 minutes. Maybe tonight I will have a more thought out idea. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is, by definition, a subjective list. There is no cut off that won't be arbitrary, so if we are going to go down this path, then lets first accept that it will constitute the subjective opinion of the projects editors.  IMO, a top down approach would be valuable here.  I guess the first question is whether there is support for my idea that the Top level should constitute only a defined limit on the number of articles.  I like 50 myself.  If there is support for that, then lets define those 50 and see what's next, perhaps? Resolute 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * While we should define the criteria to keep the 'top' number low, I don't want to start by naming the top 50 articles, which is what I think you're suggesting. That will for sure inspire arguments. If we define the criteria to be tough, that would be enough, no? I suggest starting by figuring out how to split out HHOF players. What about non-NHL and NHL to start? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like an arbitrary cutoff based on number of articles, because there's no reasoning behind it, not even a lack of space rationale. I suggest breaking the problem down into smaller, more manageable bits: what are the major areas that are important to the ice hockey domain, and what are the key topics that must be covered in order to tell the history of these areas? Isaac Lin (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We can split up HHOFers based on number of awards won. It could be HHOF and >10 or >20 award wins, something like that. That makes it less subjective, but should fit common sense. And move 'lesser' HHOF members to 'High'. Because after all HHOF members is over a hundred. It seems to be stretching it to extend 'top' status to all players. Certainly, only a small percentage of them are of 'top' importance. I will try to develop an estimate of the effect of various criteria on the HHOF players. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, in truth, I don't think there are 50 "top importance" articles in the first place. IMO, that ranking would be only for key articles related to the sport. All I can think of off hand are Ice hockey, History of ice hockey, National Hockey League and International Ice Hockey Federation.  Everything else will branch off of one of those into a lower spot.  From a biography POV, Gretzky, Tretiak, Orr, but not many else there either.  Overall, I have a very good idea of how I would branch articles, but it is vastly different than alaney's ideas.  And even in my own personal criteria, there are a lot of articles that I'm not sure if they are high, mid or low.  Resolute 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria in the table above seem very top-heavy. I'm not sure I would have any players in the "Top" category, saving that for the most basic of basic information about the game and its history.  For me Gretzky, Howe, etc would be "High", other HOFers and current stars would be "Mid" and pretty much everyone else would be low.  Rankings of importance also lean very heavily towards recentism.  So, basically - just another opinion that adds weight to the argument that rankings of importance are very subjective.Canada Hky (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's subjective. And the comment is repetitive! :-) However, remember this is for ranking in importance for Wiki 1.0. Even if we move things up or down a category, the relative ranking is what is most important. It's a way to give some indication from this group of the relative ranking. I think we can achieve consensus on this if we keep this in mind. But it seems cumbersome to revise the table and repost it. Is there a better way to do it? ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 22:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I still think top down is appropriate. So, forgetting any caps, lets just look at what we consider the top articles first.  Hypothetically, what articles would a release version of Wikipedia include?  I think the four I listed above.  Maybe the Original Six NHL teams.  I get Canada Hky's point about biographies not being considered top, but there's little doubt in my mind that guys like Gretzky, Orr and Richard had lasting effects on the sport.  KHL/Elitserien/sm-Liiga? Resolute 22:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Gretzky won over 20 trophies and 15 all-star teams etc. Orr 17, all-star teams 9. Richard only won one trophy, but was named to the all-star team 14 times. So it would seem that there is a criteria there if we have add trophy wins and all-star teams > 10, we should get only top players. Gordie Howe, Ray Bourque, Joe Sakic, etc. Which is okay because you want top players from more than one era.

Is this closer? (I'm working in User:Alaney2k/Hockey importance) ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 01:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully others chime in. Looking better to me, but I would not consider either Bourque or Sakic as top priority articles - so it goes without saying I am not a huge fan of an arbitrary awards standard.  From a historical perspective, the Patrick brothers did far, far more for the game than either of those two, for example. You've got a couple more obvious top importance articles though. (How could I have forgotten the Stanley Cup?)Resolute 02:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't argue that guys like Gretzky et al aren't important to the game of hockey, but I think the game of hockey and its institutions (leagues, international governing bodies, etc) are a level above. If this were the NHL WikiProject, I would have those guys as Top importance, but to include them would to me mean including their contemporaries from other leagues around the world.  I would also say that 100 games isn't a long-time player at a given level, its only slightly more than a single season in the NHL.  Canada Hky (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also biased against early players as well. Good point. Resolute 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything against early players. We could add a criteria to elevate players based on them becoming coachs and managers and owners (e.g. Lemieux) in their career. Which might help early players like the Patricks. It's a bit debatable to boost early players. The game was more raw and you get wild out-of-bounds circumstances like Frank McGee scoring 14 goals in Stanley Cup competition (and others scoring over 10 goals) in one game that are not comparable to someone scoring 14 today. Which is impossible, just based on the fact that players don't play 60 minutes per game. All-star games and trophies go back to the 20s and the patricks named all-stars back in the 1910s so we cover stuff pretty well. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be best for top- and high-priority candidates to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with the above table as a strong guideline (such as how WP:NHOCKEY is a strong guideline for notability). Influences on the game should be more important than the amount of trophies won, especially as older players had less trophies to win.  Also, rather minor, but I'd like to add "Ice hockey in media" to LOW importance, with articles about video games (such as NHL 11) and film (Sudden Death (film) or Score: A Hockey Musical, which I am shamefully kind of excited for), etc. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 03:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to do that except to set up rules. But there will be exceptions. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the this seems to be gaining traction but just to throw a wrench into the works, has anyone considered the actual logistics of the assessing of all the articles for importance? There are still 1,500+ articles not even assessed for rating and that's after a couple of editors finished assessing 1,400 article before the recent update. However, more to the point what about big events such as Summit Series and Miracle on Ice? Both are big events in their respective nations, even producing movies about the events, but don't carry the same weight internationally. So are they mid where in their respective countries they might be considered high? And what about edit wars over rankings, it sounds ridicules but there was one going on over Ovechkin's weight a couple of months ago mainly due to anon users chaning things as they see fit. It seems like opening a can of worms for the 1.0 roll-out were we'll still end up with a lot of the same articles. IMO--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The cut and dry articles can easily and quickly be done by AWB. It's the borderline ones that might take longer. And of course there is no deadline so if it take a long time it takes a long time. Some being done and others not being done isn't a big deal. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles could default to 'Low' importance and we start from the top and work down. There are fewer top articles. And that's where the priority is, no? The larger list is when we get further down the pyramid. That will take time, for certain. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk )


 * Alaney's revised list looks good to me. And c'mon, Resolute ... from a historical standpoint, there isn't a player in the history of the game - not Gretzky, not Howe, not Hull, not Lalonde, no one - who changed the game as much as the Patrick brothers did.  So stipulated.  But we're not trying to lock ourselves into a five year plan here or anything graven in stone.  We're looking for a working consensus to suggest to the 1.0 project articles worth including and those nowhere remotely close worth including.  To some degree, importance should reflect the "reasonable man" premise, and the utility of an encyclopedia that promotes (say) Frank Patrick over preeminent superstars would be seen to be limited.  (And come to that, Vezina in your best half-dozen players ever?  He isn't even in the top three goalies of his era.)   Ravenswing  04:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This article: WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Importance is really useful. I'll write a page similar to that page, using content from that page, and call it WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Wikipedia_1.0/Importance. With the above table as revised, the difference being that we will use a predefined list, where the math group uses examples. I'll let y'all know when that's ready for discussion as a proposal. ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 17:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably better to just create a section on WikiProject Ice Hockey/Assessment. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been cutting, but it seems a bit much to wedge into that article. Still working on it ... &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think for players we are confusing "importance" with "achievements". There shouldn't be top importance hockey articles, and then a separate criteria for top importance player articles.  A player is either of utmost importance to the game of hockey, or he isn't.  An arbitrary number of awards does not make him one or the other. Canada Hky (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that ranking the non-player articles for their encyclopedic importance was straight-forward. What is not straight-forward are ranking the players. I welcome suggestions to improve the ranking. You suggested that 100 games is not a good delimiter to move up the rankings. I used that figure as it was used in the notability as a figure. We could use a season-based figure -- like three seasons to move up a notch. As for using awards and all-star nominations, I think it does fairly closely match who you would pick as a 'top' player. Players like Gretzky and Orr have lots of awards. I could look at the Hockey News 100 top players book and see how well it matches. Maybe there are too many ways to move up to "High", that's what I wonder about. There are some players who are in the Hall of Fame who are probably less worthy than some outside. A comparison someone made to me was Leo Boivin vs. Dean Prentice. I did not want to use stats because that would make the earlier players less like to move up in importance. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand why you picked the cutoff of 100, I just think that if its the base cutoff we use for notability, there's really very few ways that guys who are barely notable can be of anything but low importance. Your random third or fourth line plugger doesn't become more important after x number of seasons.  My issue with 10+ awards / All-Star placements is that we get guys like Dave Keon and Ray Bourque who easily pass that barrier, but just don't scream "Important" (to me).  Top importance should be saved for game-changers and record setters - not just guys who were really good during their era.  Someone like Borje Salming is less accomplished statistically, but in terms of importance to the game as a whole (first Swedish "star"), I would say he is more important.  The other issue with the Top 100 players is that it is just NHL players.  As an ice hockey project, we can't just say its 10+ NHL awards and all-star placings.Canada Hky (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your POV is just that, a POV. From an encyclopedic point of view, if someone plays for more seasons, then there is more reason for that player to be included in Wikipedia 1.0. Same for award-winning, all-star nominations, etc. It's more likely that that article will be looked up by someone. That's what we are talking about. I included an MVP for other top leagues in there. Other leagues name all-stars. I'm pretty sure Salming would move up beyond a third-line player in this ranking system. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk )
 * I wasn't comparing Salming to a third line player. I was comparing Salming (relatively undecorated as a HOFer) to his more decorated fellow HOFers in Keon and Bourque (both outstanding players, but not revolutionary in any way).  If we are comparing a player's likelihood to be looked up, then anyone who played pre-internet era should automatically be downgraded.  Again, "likelihood to be looked up" isn't the same as "importance".  It will lean heavily in favour of current NHLers, rather than important players.  If we went by "likelihood to be looked up" then Canadian National Jr players should be notable regardless of their draft status.  This has gone from "Importance" to "Accomplishments" and now it seems we are at "Popularity". Canada Hky (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to take that out of the equation by using awards + all-stars + hof + longevity as a guide to assessing players. Trying to devise a reasonable guideline. It's a start. You want all the hof players to be in Wikipedia 1.0. You want all the major award winners, the MVP players. You want the players who've gone on to be executives. There is the counter-argument that Taylor Hall has to be there based on currency and the number of hits generated, but that is not a Ice Hockey issue, that's a Biography project issue. That's where popularity would be a criteria, not so much in a ice hockey encyclopedia. Popularity doesn't last in hockey unless you can back it up with results. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 22:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is "likelihood to be looked up" if not popularity? And what are the goals of classifying the hockey articles by importance?  Getting as many hockey articles as possible included in Wikipedia 1.0 or accurately assessing an article's importance to ice hockey as a whole?  Canada Hky (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just incase anyone misunderstands how it works. Importance won't help more articles get in. It will just help decide which hockey articles out of the hockey articles selected get in. -DJSasso (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Canada Hky: The likelihood to be looked up includes things like wanting to look the stanley cup champions of xx year, the award winners of yy year. The goal-scoring champion of a year, etc. That is what I mean. You want to have those articles in the encyclopedia. You and I will differ on the 'importance to ice hockey' in some idealistic terms. That's our POVs. That's not what this proposal is about. It's about determining a way to rank hockey players suitable for Wikipedia 1.0 inclusion. Let's make a straight-forward way to assess that. Let's move forward. ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 14:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what the discussion is for. We would be moving forward into the same circular discussion.  I am in favour of Resolute's initial suggestion of a hard cap on top importance articles.  Use consensus and discussion to fill it with 50-75 articles. Same for high importance, but with a slightly larger # of articles, maybe 100-150.  Mid and low will be quite easy to fill, most players will be low.  I am not in favour of quantifying (or attempting to quantify) the unquantifiable.Canada Hky (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok you are on the record. So I would say that at this point, there are two approaches, the above approach of debating the importance on an article-by-article basis and one whereby we use a longevity/league/awards/all-stars/hof factor to move players up from the 'Low' or 'Not rated' importance level. Should we do a straw poll? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest a duel, but that is probably logistically complicated. If these are the two options, I think a poll is the next step.  Canada Hky (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hockey players aren't worth it. Which is the only point of contention really. I think for non-player articles, I think there is consensus to assess by general consensus as to what are 'top-importance', etc. That's the first table in the Importance section. The second table is the one we need to come to consensus about. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the best might be a hybrid of the two current schools of thought. I'm in favor of a consensus being reached for "Top" priority articles (and to some degree "high") but I don't believe there needs to be a cap on the amount of articles, the consensus will do a fair enough job of capping it. I think that the NHL awards are "Top" which might be North American-centric, but as the top league using non-explanatory titles like Norris Trophy results in a higher probability of being looked up, making them more important to an encyclopedia. But that's for further debate. The real sticking point so far is regards to player articles, where I agree with alaney2k about having a system based on achievements to limit the disputes about who belongs where. However, I think that in the above table the player pages are given way to much importance. All players should be a base of low no mater what league they played in. It's nice to think of an NHL player as being more important but realistically is there any difference between Don Parsons, Arto Blomsten, or Tang Liang? (in case your wondering one was the all time minor league goal scoring leader, one was an NHL player and one was an Olympian) IMO no there isn't. I think guys who have played 10+ years or have won multiple awards in a top League and Hall of Famers could be moved up to a base of Mid, this would allow more notable players to be set apart. It also does not set guys that would less likely to be viewed from being set to high but not disregarding their accomplishments (eg. Graham Drinkwater). Players can be moved up to "high" by a specific number of accolades or by a debate, I think that it would need to be decided on specific criteria after a system has been agreed upon. Of course players could still be considered top, like Gretzky who for some people is all they know about hockey. Just wanted to through my 2 cents in before the voting got too far along.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The poll is about the approach, not necessarily that it has to be the levels I've suggested. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll
Before going too much further to work on either approach, which approach do you favour? This is for ranking players.

Approach 1. - Determine top, high and low-importance players/figures by consensus. Develop a list for 'top', which is limited in number.

Approach 2. - Determine top, high and low-importance players/figures by using their achievements in a formula where a player moves up in importance by the number of achievements attained. It would be expected that any 'top-level' players will be limited by the formula to a small number.

Enter your !vote into either section. ʘ alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Supporting Approach 1

 * 1) Canada Hky (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC), though I do not support the idea of limiting in number.  Judging by the comments below, perhaps a new poll with better wording should be created before the number of voters expands?

Supporting Approach 2

 * 1) Since I proposed it, I think it is an easier method to achieve a reasonable separation of players. ʘ  alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 17:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Sounds good to me.   Ravenswing  14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Is this a bit of a false dichotomy? As I mentioned earlier, I do not support a hard limit on the number of articles in a category, but approach 2 alone (without exceptions) doesn't quite fit the philosophy I suggested. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't make it clear. I think there is consensus for the topics to be worked out. It's a question of either working on players importance by individual determination; where I suggest using a ranking system based on achievement. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus could be used to determine the number of articles under any given importance heading as well. A cap is more of a starting point, to focus discussion.  Canada Hky (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that might just add another layer of arguing to the discussion, distracting from the purpose of trying to present an encyclopedic account of ice hockey. Most of the discussion has seemed to centre around "which players should be considered at which level of importance". I prefer to ask "what topics should be covered to gain a certain level of understanding of ice hockey", and let the number of topics worry about itself. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to. It could quite easily work your way.  I guess the better question for the poll would be - how do we slot articles by importance (regardless of how many there are) - do we set a formula or use consensus?  Either way (set number, or just let things sort themselves out), I still think discussion is the way to do it.  Canada Hky (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Isaac. We have determined, if loosely, what topics belong in the 'top' range. I've not had anyone disagree with it being a 'pyramid' of fewer articles in the 'top'. I don't think we need to set a hard number. It would be helpful if there was a tool to determine 'how many articles fit under topic x', so we could see how things shake out. There are lots of NHL season articles. There are lots of Stanley Cup Final and soon, playoff articles. Would it be too many to put in the 'top' category? I think so. So how do we cut that off. But we can and the only way is by consensus. If we put those season articles into high, then that's 200 articles right off the bat. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any of the season articles I would be putting in low. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would that fit with Wiki 1.0 guidelines? That would create a lot of red-links? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. How does picking importance create redlinks?-DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If those are ranked too low, would they be excluded from Wiki 1.0's DVD? So the NHL and player articles that are included on the DVD references to seasons would be redlinks. Or maybe they are changed in the process to non-links. Since there are probably lots of links to the seasons, it might not be a good idea for completeness. I would rank them higher than individual players of limited experience. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if they switch them to non-links. But I think you are missing the point of what importance does. Importance won't mean more articles get added to wikipedia 1.0. Approximately the same number of articles will make it into wikipedia 1.0 (162 were choosen for 0.8 but some of those may have been choosen due to them belonging to other projects). Importance ranking will only make the odds higher that of those 162 that get picked that they will be important ones. Importance does not increase how many are choosen. There is basically a compicated formula involving ranking of the articles by importance, and by quality and by page hits and the like which spits out a number. Then the system takes the highest X number for each subject from that list and thats what it uses. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rating requests
Greetings, would a member of this project please review and rate both Whitecourt Wolverines and Whitecourt Wolverines (2008–2012)? They surely are no longer stubs. Also, please advise if the former is worth a GA review in its current state. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Resolute in response to request here. Hwy43 (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a re-assessment of Champions Day. Significant content has been added since last assessment including: Expansion of intro paragraph, three new sections added, additional detail and information added to both previously existing sections, added more than a dozen additional references. Rrbee (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ice hockey player biographies for deletion
I have stumbled upon a list of biographies of ice hockey players who seem to not meet the requirements for notability, and are poorly referenced in their articles. I was wondering if anyone here might like to take a look to make sure this is appropriate or add to the the discussion at articles for deletion. Articles for deletion/Anton Öhman Articles for deletion/Marcus Pettersson Articles for deletion/Niclas Burström Articles for deletion/Henrik Marklund Articles for deletion/Patrik Enberg Articles for deletion/Pontus Petterström Articles for deletion/Conor Allen Articles for deletion/Eddie Larsson Articles for deletion/Kristofer Berglund Articles for deletion/Niclas Lundgren Articles for deletion/Ville Varakas Articles for deletion/Ryan Gunderson Scottsadventure (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)