Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NHL playoff series

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 keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHL playoff series

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

a matrix cataloging every historical NHL playoff matchup. WP:INDISCRIMINATE TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying this page is "indiscriminate" implies that the information was compiled in a thoughtless or haphazard manner. However, one can see that is not the case, as the information is clearly organized with thought and care. In addition, the nominator's rationale "A matrix cataloging every historical NHL playoff matchup" reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, by claiming the information on this page is indiscriminate, just because they believe it to be true, without providing any deeper reason for why this page should be deleted. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 22:57, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that every playoff has its own article, I fail to see how it is indiscriminate to list them; the nom should expand his rationale beyond a WP:VAGUEWAVE or withdraw. This seems to easily satisfy WP:LISTPURP. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since nominator's reasoning isn't really correct. With regards to WP:LISTPURP above, I'm not sure but I guess it satisfies it. Ansh666 21:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not in this to win any argument, so I have no reason to withdraw. I'm actually on the fence on this myself. Pardon if I didn't point an established precedent that fits this example exactly. Is correlating data and presenting it in a new fashion considered WP:OR? That's what we have here: raw data: team X played team Y in 1965, etc, etc. Lets derive from the raw data that they also played in 1974, 1987, and 2011. Team Y advanced 3 out of the 4 times. Its presented like it is relevant, but in reality all 4 series are vastly unrelated because of player/personal turn over. Is that trivial, is that WP:CRUFT? I am trying to find similar articles (or evidence of similar articles in AFDs), but I haven't come across anything. TerminalPreppie (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first I've seen of its kind, but it's not OR (from the page, "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.") since the information is all readily available and referenced (this page has the nhl.com source, as well as I guess the individual sources in every page.) I personally think that it's a bit unnecessary, but that isn't really a good reason to delete it. In response to the other concern about cruft and such, the list isn't organized too well; if anything, it should be by year instead of by which other team was played and get rid of the stats, which would considerably shorten the list and remove that issue. Ansh666 18:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Organizing a sport's history by team/franchise does not raise any OR concerns because it is standard and obvious for the subject, as is outlining the histories/rivalries between individual teams. Player turnover is a constant for any team in any sport and doesn't at all change that the teams have continuity as entities and are treated as such by sports historians and the general public (cf. National Hockey League rivalries).
  Regardless, this is as far as I can tell the only list organizing the playoff series information and articles, so even if this is not the best way to organize that information deletion is simply not an option; we would develop and edit this list. See WP:ATD. One last comment: in the future, please don't list an article at AFD if you are "on the fence". This venue is for if you think content should be deleted, not if you don't know if it should. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to cruft, not OR, but basically I agree with you here. Ansh666 23:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not an indsicriminate list as it utilizes a set and fixed inclusion criteria. You could perhaps move each team's table to their seasons article, but after going back and forth in my mind, I think this works too. Reso lute 22:15, 25 April 2013 (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.