Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of players who played only one game in the NHL

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of players who played only one game in the NHL[edit]

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

What makes playing exactly one game a particularly notable achievement? Why isn't there List of players who played two games in the NHL? List of players who played 597 games in the NHL? Also, the article is too much in flux during the season, as people are always playing their first or second games throughout the course of the season. When I tagged this for notability, another editor noted that this was a relic of when single-gamers didn't get their own articles. Since each hockey player on this list has (or is entitled to) his own article, I see no purpose of this list. See also WP:TRIVIA. Most of the problem I have with this list is that people with two or more games aren't eligible, though they're clearly at least as notable as players who played only one game. p b p 21:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree this list should probably be deleted, the list isn't greatly in flux. New players are only added at the end of each season and the flux is limited to those who played their lone NHL game during the previous two seasons (currently 2011–12 and 2012–13). Rarely is a player who played three or more seasons ago removed - in fact, only two such players on the list (Thomas McCollum, 2010–11, and Riku Helenius, 2008–09) are currently under contract with an NHL team - and beyond four or five seasons the list is basically solidified. -- I suppose the difference between a list of one-gamers and a list of two-gamers is that there are two hockey websites that have a list of one-gamers - Hockeydb and the Hockey Hall of Fame. Neither explains the significance of being one-gamer and is just a list of names. Both lists have inaccuracies. One incorrectly lists Lester Patrick and the other is the only major hockey reference website to list a Bob Price as having played an NHL game. Also, both websites title them "one game wonders". Is this an official designation? -- Merging it with Cup of coffee, which is in the Ice hockey terminology category, and only listing the notable one-gamers such as Don Cherry and the four goal scorers might be an option. --72.25.51.187 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So your oppose is that you don't like the list's subject? You don't like it because it doesn't list people with 2 or more games? That is a completely different topic and lists for anyone who has played any number of games in the NHL already exist. And you wonder why people think a lot of your nominations and rational are ridiculous. Being a single game player in the NHL is notable in its own right in a completely different way than being a player who has played 1+x number of games. Being a single game player in the NHL is something that is written about often. I can see reasons why someone might want to delete this list, but because it bothers you that 2 game players can't get on it is not one of them. That is like saying I don't like List of female tennis players because it doesn't include any men. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is being a single-game player notable in a different way from playing two or more games? There is no source in the article that says it is, and there needs to be for it to pass our standards. Even if there was, there's still the hurdle of WP:TRIVIA to pass. If you played one NHL game, you are notable for playing in the NHL. If you played two or more NHL games, you are notable for playing in the NHL. There should either be lists for both of those topics, or lists for neither of them. And, no, it is nothing like female tennis players, because there are lists of male tennis players. Also, the "And you wonder why people think a lot of your nominations and rational are ridiculous" is completely uncalled for. Just because I think differently than you do doesn't mean I'm not entitled to create AfD nominations and move requests based on rationale I see fit. p b p 19:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Resolute mentions below, you misunderstand what WP:TRIVIA is about. Its about lists of "miscellaneous facts" in an article. It doesn't apply to list articles that have clearly defined criteria or it would cause every list article to be deleted. And there are lists for players who have played more than one game so it is exactly like the tennis player example. So yes your argument is a complete WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement. If you are going to make completely out there nominations then a duck can be called a duck. -DJSasso (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You should probably understand the guidelines you are using to frame your arguments, pbp. WP:TRIVIA does not apply as this is not a list of miscellaneous information. It is, in fact, a list with specific, defined and consistent criteria. Your definition of TRIVIA would necessitate the deletion of probably every list on Wikipedia. The rest of your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reso lute 20:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a perfectly valid LIST article. It is informative and useful in that it helps the reader to find navigate to articles of this particular interest. The subject of this list article also meets GNG as evidenced by significant and reliable independent sources. [1] [2] The fact that the nominator is unable to internally rationalize why there is a list of One Game Players, when there is not a list of Two Game Players is not a valid reason to delete. Dolovis (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Hockey and Hockey DB have tables on a great many things. Many of them don't deserve Wikipedia articles. This is one of them. p b p 18:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Reso lute 18:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep rationale is essentially ILIKEIT, though, Resolute. All your !vote does is bash my rationale, rather than actually giving a valid reason why playing one game and only one game is a stat worthy of a Wikipedia article p b p 18:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already shown that it is a stat worthy of note as it is noted by others, significantly by the Hockey Hall of Fame. Then again, I can't really fault you for trying to shift the burden of proof in a bid to save an AFD that presented no valid deletion rationale. Reso lute 20:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a fascination with people who get one brief taste of fame (see Lists of one-hit wonders for the musical equivalent) that's missing from those achieve a bit more (nobody mentions two-hit wonders). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That fascination flies in the face of our notability guidelines though. Our notability guidelines say that if a person who does something once is notable, a person who does something twice...is also notable. Therefore, we either need both one-hit and two-hit lists, or none at all p b p 15:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False dichotomy, and a particularly desperate argument at that. But at least it represents a slightly greater effort than your "I know you are but what am I?" argument in response to my comments. Reso lute 17:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between disagreeing with my arguments and disparaging them, Resolute. To call my argument "desperate" is unnecessary. To call my argument a false dichotomy is inaccurate. p b p 17:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "we must do x or we must do y" is a false dichotomy. We can also do neither. And your latest argument is as ridiculous as suggesting that List of NHL players with 50-goal seasons must be deleted because there is no List of NHL players with 51-goal seasons. Or that baseball shouldn't have the 300 win club article because there is no 299 win club article. Most statistical lists are arbitrary in some fashion, but in the end, we're just circling back to the fact that you simply don't like this one. Reso lute 21:24, 7 December 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.