Project:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/List of ice hockey leagues

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. while a major portion of the article is composed of redlinks; by just reading that I could learn about the names of ice hockey leagues worldwide. Kept per notability and community consensus.

List of ice hockey leagues[change]

List of ice hockey leagues (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Barras has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This list should be deleted, it is just a collection of redlinks. Also, there are links in the list to facebook and stuff. Actually it might be just deleted as A3 or copyvio as it is a copy of enwiki. Barras (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change]

Keep The list is brand new. Don't jump on things so fast. The leagues are notable and should eventually be made. Its a completely valid list. This nominating articles within a day of them being created has to stop. If we want editors to come here we have to stop scaring them off. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- One day isn't enough time? Imo, it is enough time. -Barras (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  - Not in a case like this where probably the articles are going to be created by the person creating the list. Not to mention the rules for lists don't require everything to be linked or to be notable. All you have done now is cause me to have to go through creating one sentence stubs for most of these articles. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    - Why do you have to create one-line stubs for these leagues? Why can't we have several paragraphs on each? Either way (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
      - One line because I now have only a few days to get them all created to stop the deletion of this page. (and there are a hundred or more) -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
        Well, I don't think that copying and pasting the first line of the English Wikipedia's article on each is the best way to go about it. Either way (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    - (change conflict) Well, since you don't mind that we have thousands of one-liners, it shouldn't be a problem to have a few more. Actually, this list could just be deleted as copyvio of enwiki's page. -Barras (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
      - Not anymore its been imported to attribute. Frankly unless there is a serious issue with an article a new account created I wouldn't touch it for atleast a week. Why we go out of our way to scare off editors I don't know. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
        Oh, and looking at your creations, they aren't attributed either and can be deleted. You should know better as an admin here. Your created one-liners are just the copy of enwiki's first sentence. No attribution in the edit summary, nothing on the talk page. And there is actually no excuse. Attribution should be added just after the creation. -Barras (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
        You can't copyright a single sentence so don't need to be attributed. In order to be able to apply copyright there has to be originality of thought. A simple single sentence statement of fact can't be copywritten. -DJSasso (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
        But it is a copy out of the whole thing. That's the same as you'd straight copy something (one sentence) from somewhere without attribution. Try to say this when writing a dissertation in Germany... Do this a few times and you get troubles. -Barras (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Fine, I will import the attribes then. Either way same result. The point still stands....we shouldn't be biting newbies. -DJSasso (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with being bitey. You don't even need to import the stuff, the {{enwiki based}} on the talk page or a link in the first edit summary is enough actually. -Barras (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It does, putting up an article for deletion that only marginally should be deleted right after it was created is bitey. Any way you look at it. I know I could use that template, but I prefer the attributes. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It would've been much more bitey if I had just deleted it on sight as copyvio/enwiki c&p, which would have been valid as well. -Barras (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It would have been yes. Doesn't change things...a person punching someone doesn't get off just because they could have shot them which would have been worse. But its not just you...I see this on here all the time. Instead of taking a moment to coach the new editor about the problem and trying to fix it (in this case by adding some attribution) we jump to deletion which is possible that it might scare a new editor off. Slow down and take your time in these situations. Nothing would have broken or died if this waited a few days. In this case I likely would have seen it and started completing red links since hockey is what I edit most anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly a contentious list. I notice about 3/4 of it is clearly non-notable, consisting of junior and senior teams. By way of comparison, the List of English football teams has no junior, no senior and no women's teams, and no amateur teams. The list of Spanish football teams only gives the top two leagues. If this list stays, it should be ruthlessly pruned. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the leagues on this list are actually notable leagues. Junior hockey for example is huge in Canada almost rivaling the top professional league in the world for popularity. That being said I will be pruning it for now I suppose. (I should mention just for people not familiar that Senior doesn't mean senior citizens, its just the level after Junior) -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep As the user that created the article, it should definitely be kept. If the leagues are notable enough for en.wikip, why not for simple.wikip?--Hockeyben (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair things on en and simple are very different and often articles that are appropriate on en are not appropriate on simple. I don't believe it is the case on this one. But is often the case between wikis. Not all wikis have the same requirements for articles. You can't just move articles between wikis and assume it will be ok. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep List of things are a necessary evil. Even redlinks provide information.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep or categorize Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.