Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1967 NHL Expansion

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 snow keep. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1967 NHL Expansion

Article is just an essay on the 1967 expansion, with lots of weasel words and some oblique WP:BLP violations (e.g., saying the owners "ruled with an iron fist"). Topic can be adequately covered in National Hockey League without all this editorializing. TheBLPGuy 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The 1967 expansion was one of the most significant events in the history of professional ice hockey, if not the most. For those who don't remember, the NHL played with the same six teams for decades. The decision to expand doubled the league's size, and it's continued to grow ever since and become a multi-billion dollar business. I think now they have six divisions, each with five teams, so it's five times larger than it was 40 years ago. Editorializing can be cleaned up. Otherwise, it's well-written.Mandsford 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with History of the National Hockey League. I don't think this is important enough to get its own article, although the history article would benefit from more on the circumstances of the expansion. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (former fan: California Seals)[reply]
Strong Keep: Possibly the single most significant event in the history of the NHL, and quite aside from the notability of the expansion, I've a few bones to pick. First off, perhaps nom could explain why he filed an AfD and placed an unreferenced tag ... surely the latter could have preceded the former? Secondly, the fact that this happened forty years ago might have clued nom in that it is extremely unlikely that the owners of major professional sports teams in the 1960s would still be alive to set off WP:BLP violations, and it is in fact the case that no NHL team owner before expansion is still living. Thirdly, other sports with such a massive expansion have dedicated articles to the event ... say, the AFL-NFL Merger. Ravenswing 01:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article documents very significant events in the sport's history. Cleanup is necessary to make a better article. Flibirigit 06:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article, I concur thast this needs urgent cleaning-up, to remove the weasel words and the POV issues. If this is not done then, IMHO and in the interests of maintaining standards, the article needs mergeing into the parent article, and deleteing from here. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Beyond any question, this expansion was a pivotal event in ice hockey and worth much more than a mere paragraph, for example, in the history of hockey. However, the lack of citations is of considerable concern. Finally, while not raised in the nomination, 1967 NHL Expansion Draft could be considered in due course for merging into this article. Pever 12:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable enough to merit its own article, there's no question about that for me. It just needs to be re-written and improved.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 13:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Needing cleanup is by no means a reason to AFD. I suggest the nominator read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion before nominating any other article. ccwaters 13:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Possibly one of the most important events in hockey history next to the purchasing of the Stanley Cup. --Djsasso 13:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A defining moment in professional hockey. DMighton 14:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like we have a lot of confusion here about the deletion guidelines and the reason for nomination - including two users who are so confused that they think that attacking the nominator is a valid argument in an AfD debate. I'm not arguing that the event isn't important; I'm arguing that it can't stand alone as a separate article. There's almost nothing here worth saving once you strip out the weasel words and the POV content. And a "major" event in what is in effect a minor North American sports league (at best, the fourth-most popular league in the U.S., and it's slipping). Coverage of this event belongs in History_of_the_National_Hockey_League, probably as a breakout of the current "Expansion" section - as long as it's sourced and is NPOV. | TheBLPGuy 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As previously noted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD, the procedure to propose a merge is outlined in WP:MERGE. ccwaters 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I am sorry you are so confused as to think that questioning the methodology and pointing out downright errors in a nomination are invalid AfD arguments, but it's stood alone as a separate article for years now, and so far you're in the great minority on its notability. Ravenswing 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I think you are missing the point of us saying that it is a very important fact. It is a single event that is very historically important that in an of itself it deserves a seperate article. I mean a good example to compare it to would be the US Civil War. It was a single event. Should it be only listed in History of the United States? I don't think so. I agree that it needs a cleanup but to say it can't stand on its own is rediculous. And your reasoning for the afd is totally invalid because all the owners have long since deceased. --Djsasso 16:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW and because nominator presents a request for cleanup, not for deletion. The 1967 expansion was a watershed moment for the NHL, and perhaps the second most notable period in NHL history after the formation of the league itself. Resolute 14:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep extremely notable event in the history of the NHL. Pparazorback 15:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep None of the owners of the Original Six teams are even alive ... the basis for this nomination (BLP concerns) is invalid.--Blueboy 96 15:54, 15 June 2007 (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.