Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ice hockey players considered the greatest of all time

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. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice hockey players considered the greatest of all time[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Since List of association football players considered the greatest of all time has been deleted, this should go too. Besides, it has been well-established that there are only three real candidates (Gretzky, Howe and Orr). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each list should be considered on its own merit, and this one is well sourced, easily meeting the requirements for WP:V and WP:RS, just like List of films considered the best. That this article contains only six names is non consequential to the deletion discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well sourced? The sole "reference" for Béliveau is Terry Dawes, a writer for "a monthly online magazine about Canadian technology stocks". For Sidney Crosby, we have Miika Arponen (whoever he is) and Crosby's own team (hardly neutral). Lemieux has a fan in Mark Barberio. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the article could not be improved. Remember, WP:DINC. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the exact same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players considered the greatest of all time. This is another WP:SYNTH monstrosity. Ajf773 (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - one possibility would be to take the two polls linked in "see also" and any other similar polls (if they exist) and make this list into a combination/overview of the polls, as those would seem to have some weight due to how they were compiled. Including players based on the seemingly throwaway opinions of single (in some cases random and non-notable) people has no merit, however, IMO. List of films considered the best is mentioned above, but the entries on that list are based on wide-ranging polls of critics or the public and it doesn't anywhere include (at a quick glance, I didn't read it all) any entries based solely on one individual person in an interview saying "I think this is the greatest film ever".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it stands now, this is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and not much of a list anyway. The sources are the particular ones that certain Wikipedia editors happened to find, but who is to say there isn't an expert somewhere who regards Maurice Richard as the greatest ever. The number of experts in the list is particularly concerning as there is no objective basis for it - again, it just number of experts that certain Wikipedia editors happened to find. There could be scope for an article about who has been considered the greatest of all time over time - and for right now I think the consensus as Clarityfiend states (and as the article actually supports) is that it would come from among Howe, Orr and Gretzky, but that is a sentence, not an article. Tracing the emergence of the consensus greatest of all time over time could be a reasonable article - when did Howe gain consensus over the prior player or players considered, what happened before that, when did Orr join Howe on that pedestal, at least potentially, and then when did Gretzky. But this isn't it. Rlendog (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a discussion at a bar not an article. If it were an analysis, like Klein and Reif do, of the most dominant players of their era, with supporting rationale, then you might have an actually sourced article that is not simply OR.18abruce (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rlendog. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nom hasn't presented a valid deletion ground, "a similar list was deleted" and "I disagree with the article's conclusions" being neither. Nonetheless, I've never cared for it (and trust me, when the first iteration of the article posited that Wendel Clark and Patrick Marleau were in the running, of whom it couldn't be rightly said that they were the best players on their team, contemporaneously ...), and likewise believe it a fairly trivial exercise in SYNTH and OR. 18abruce was dead on: this is a bar/forum discussion topic, not a sound basis for an article. Ravenswing 18:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough basis for keeping the article. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheEditster (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of "something something something considered something something something" dont work on Wikipedia because they invariably apply undue weight by listing every minority opinion, because consensus never weeds out fringe opinions in these types of list. However, per WP:UNDUE: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. The list in theory could work. but just never will on Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:02, 3 April 2019 (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.