Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 NHL transactions

:{{la|2014–15 NHL transactions}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014%E2%80%9315_NHL_transactions Stats])

:({{Find sources|2014–15 NHL transactions}})

This is not encyclopedic. Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not sure why you would cite WP:NOTSTATSBOOK when the only numbers appearing in the list are dates. It's valuable non-trivial information that takes a bit too much space to fit into the article 2014–15 NHL season so it's a natural spin-off. Note that we do the same for the NBA (:Category:NBA transactions) and for football leagues (:Category:Association football transfers). Pichpich (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep it should be kept for the reasons already given by Pichpich GLG GLG (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:5. Wikipedia combines many features of various publication types, including almanacs. That is the category I would place these lists under. Given the clearly defined inclusion criteria and obvious relationship to their parent articles, I don't buy the WP:NOTSTATSBOOK argument. Resolute 02:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as per Resolute. Deadman137 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

: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.