Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saginaw Spirit alumni

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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saginaw Spirit alumni

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

List of players from an amateur hockey team, fails WP:LIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE as (a) overwhelmingly comprised of NN people, and (b) completely unsourced. The list itself is badly incomplete, according to hockeydb.com (the standard resource we use on the hockey Wikiproject), and hasn't been updated in several years. Given that major junior teams average 30-someodd players a season and have complete roster turnover no less frequently than every five years, and that we don't seek to maintain such lists for even many a fully professional team, the odds that this will be a more useful list than the complete ones maintained on several sites are slim to none. In any event, it's better handled by the category that's already extant. Ravenswing 07:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. For those reasons, this is an appropriate topic for a category, but not a list. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 8 April 2016 (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.