Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999

List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999

[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)

These lists both fail to meet WP:LISTN, with no independent reliable sources to validate why a standalone list is notable. The lists currently have only Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill citations to box scores, which do nothing to state why the list is notable as a whole. Flibirigit (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons as above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and rationale for the related discussion at List of first women's ice hockey internationals per country: 1987-1999. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and many of the reference links don't work. Ajf773 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: per my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first women's ice hockey internationals per country: 1987-1999, and for much the same reasons. Ravenswing 21:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Per WP:LISTN. These items are valid for the national team of each country and already listed there. gidonb (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. The origins of hockey programs are notable, but this list is not. Some of the entries that are 'sourced' do not make any logical sense and reveal how useless the source itself is; do we really believe that Iceland never played an international game until they showed up at an IIHF sanctioned championship.18abruce (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Rlendog (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- “appropriate” reasons are not suffice to describe the incompetence with reasons listed here being happy with less information, the article is beneficial to people such as myself on the autism spectrum, and I believe this wasn’t well thought about by the supposedly “fair” social thinkers listed above Dweisz94 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. You will find, in point of fact, that there is no exemption from Wikipedia policies or notability guidelines just because an article is allegedly beneficial to those on the spectrum. Being on the spectrum myself, I don't see it. Perhaps you can explain precisely what unique benefits this article -- as opposed to the other sixty-eight articles nominated for deletion on the same day -- confers to that population. Ravenswing 20:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that although different individuals may be on the spectrum we have different aptitudes oriented to different abilities, I assume keeping elemental and factual or in correspondence to “Trivia” is an advantage however there may be linguistic oriented people on the spectrum which would also still be factual), I absolutely understand about the policies but this is not being deleted due to a policy it’s due a subjective impression of the policies which haven’t actually proven to be qualified impressions Dweisz94 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dweisz94, removing the template from the list is incorrect. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process. Have a great day. Flibirigit (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]