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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Colts Schedule and Results

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons: Flibirigit (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are WP:LISTCRUFT by including every single game played, and player in the team's history. Contradicts WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NHOCKEY. We do not have this detail for higher-level NHL teams, let alone junior hockey. Flibirigit (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support nominator's reasoning for posting AfD. Good faith articles that simply do not pass the test. Wikipedia is not a fansite. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Far too much intricate detail for a team that isn't even a major team. Ajf773 (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I stated on the talk page for the Barrie Colts, NOTSTATS and original research LISTCRUFT. While they are currently unreferenced as well, the references are easy to come by. However, it is just a bunch of WP:ROUTINE coverage. We do actually often go into that level of detail for NHL teams, but it is usually split into individual season pages. Individual season pages would likely be fine (for GNG) in the OHL given its level of coverage in the Ontario and general Canadian media, but I have not seen the level of editor commitment in the upkeep of said subjects (same goes for minor league North American hockey in general). Yosemiter (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Draft Pick and Schedule and Results lists per nom; keep the roster but reorganize it. IF we do not have all-time team rosters for NHL teams there is no reason why we should not, and I don't see a reason a sourced roster for a lower level team would be inappropriate either. The current state of the roster is overly detailed, and a list would partially duplicate information from the category. But an appropriately formatted list could include information that is excluded from the categories, such as the years each player played for the team and possibly the position. Rlendog (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rlendog: For such a list to exist for the junior team, is there any more to the sourcing for WP:LISTN talking about all-time roster for every player ever? (All-time best, sure. But the entire roster ever? Seems to be somewhat excessive and never ending. At least in the NHL they would be notable players and with less change season-to-season.) Doesn't Category:Barrie Colts players suffice for a suitable list? Yosemiter (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - All time best would be a problem because of we would need an objective and reliable source for "best." Unless you are referring to a top 10 or so in various statistical categories. That would seem appropriate. But I don't have a problem with a list of every player who played for a given junior team (admittedly for notable players that would duplicate information in the category) since the list would be reliably sourceable and the category would not include players who do not have aritcles, and the list could also include some other relevant information, such as the years they played for the team, possibly games played or points scored. It would be a long list, but for someone who is interested in the particular team it could be beneficial (and reliably sourced). Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - By all-time best, I did mean reliably sourced, but yes it would be problematic in general due to bias. However, per WP:LISTN, for a stand-alone list to be considered notable, the subject should be discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I think the problem I see with it is that it is too WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the subject of the All-time players for the Barrie Colts is not really a topic that is discussed independently. It makes more of a stats page. Most of the time when independent sources discuss the Barrie Colts players, it is as footnote in a profile of a notable player's career. I think could also work just fine a redirect to a notable Barrie Colts section (or even list if there were a good GNG reason for having it). I think WP:NOTEVERYTHING might be a good guideline here: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." Yosemiter (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.