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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of first women's ice hockey internationals per country: 1987-1999[edit]

List of first women's ice hockey internationals per country: 1987-1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This was draftified months ago because "Incomplete, unsourced, of dubious notability as a list topic", but now moved back to mainspace without improvements. Fram (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Ice hockey, and Lists. Fram (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have found contradictions in my research which is why I am hesitant to go further but I don’t understand what you find practical about deletion. Dweisz94 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently fails to demonstrate WP:V and so would require deletion unless the information can be verified. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This gets fixed either by me inputting reliable sources or someone else doing it, what is the benefit of simply deleting the article, an article should be deleted only if the idea of the article is bad. Dweisz94 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found any reliable sources for any of the content? WP:V is a policy and, yes, absolutely we should delete articles unless they can be verified by at least one reliable source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found reliable sources online but I'm sure they exist for now as witnesses of every nations first womens ice hockey international are still alive, there are experts available to expand the page Dweisz94 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a former ice hockey player came along and edited the article and confirmed that the information is correct like you say, it would still be a violation of WP:NOR as Wikipedia does not publish original research. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't found reliable sources online, your "surety" is simply wishful thinking. WP:V requires that those sources be produced, or the article deleted. It is not the job of "experts" or anyone else to do the work for you. Ravenswing 22:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't draftify again. A list consisting of only the first international matches of each country's women's ice hockey teams seems like trivia. No sources have been provided to verify the information nor to demonstrate that this is a notable topic for an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This same rationale applies to List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999 and since 2000. Those two articles are both exclusively sourced to one fan site, which itself lists no references. Ignoring the single-source issue, those two lists are referenced (and the references could be used to bolster this list and the draft of the women's post-2000 list), but the question remains: why? What about a list of the first games played by any country's men's or women's hockey teams makes it a notable topic for an encyclopedia, and where are the sources to explain that and provide context? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999 for the above mentioned lists. Flibirigit (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unless at least one reliable source can be provided to verify the content of the article, it must be deleted per WP:V. If anyone at any point does find a reliable source for this content, please ping me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Offering men and women seperately offers more information, references aren't listed but are indirectly existing from other Wikipedia pages whom those themselves do list references, the information is verified, simply further effort is required. Dweisz94 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There being no references isn't just some issue that needs to be fixed; it disqualifies the article in their absence. Quite aside from my agreement with Ivanvector that this would be trivial even if sourced, Dweisz94 has had months to properly source this article, and it should never have been created in the first place if they had neither the time or the inclination to do so. That Dweisz94 doesn't seem to comprehend that an article meeting WP:V is a fundamental requirement is troubling. Ravenswing 22:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your incomplete inference trivia referred to trivial, I believe I will move this to drafts until I find references. Dweisz94 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Liz has reverted, but I'll chime in: are you not seeing that the broad sentiment here is that the article is too trivial to remain on Wikipedia, sourcing or no? Ravenswing 15:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize, this isn't an intelligence issue and an impression of a raw unified platform for knowledge, this is an understanding of Wikipedia's culture so I was incorrect on how I dealt with this issue and am glad to understand democracy is coincidentally in Wikipedia's culture and let it be Dweisz94 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. Don't bother wasting more time with this in draftspace - even if this had sources, it is not a notable topic to begin with. Highway 89 (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Dweisz94, you moved this article to Draft space and removed the AFD tag. I've reverted you. Doing this won't stop this deletion discussion. Please do not move the article while this discussion is ongoing. If you believe it should be moved to Draft space, then put in a vote to Draftify. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and also delete the men's lists. There may be a worthy history that describes the entry of countries into competition, starting with those in Europe and later smaller and more tropical countries, but I don't see the trivia of what the score was against what opponent warranting stand-alone lists without broader discussion of the topic in sources rather than just verification of individual games. Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TRIVIA, and delete the men's list too for the same reason. Any encyclopedic content about first matches for a country can be added to the country's team articles, don't need pointless intersection of countries' first matches. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails to to meet WP:LISTN, with no reliable sources to validate why such a standalone list should exist. Flibirigit (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'll echo the above and reference WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and some of the above, although no objection to draftifying if Dweisz94 wants to continue looking for sources and agrees not to put it in main space until that happens. Rlendog (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is clearly a topic of multiple questions if it’s first actually a good idea and then second if it’s a good idea either frankly the moronic suggestion it must be deleted because it doesn’t have references or if it should be drafted until I find references, Wikipeda’s deletion article circumstances seem to currently not support this complication. Dweisz94 (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2023 (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.