Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunners Greatest 50 Players


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Gunners Greatest 50 Players

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * delete as indiscriminate information Mayalld (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Arsenal F.C. page - it it was an offical poll then it should probably be mentioned somewhere, perhaps under a 'Famous Players' heading. GiantSnowman 15:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a separate list of merge into Arsenal F.C.. This was an official poll, see, this is not some random fancruft. Aecis·(away) talk 16:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable, even if it is an official poll by the club, it certainly does not deserve its own article and I don't know what article you could merge it to. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per precedent of 100 Players Who Shook The Kop (Liverpool). It may be an official poll, but it's hardly objective and is subject to the normal problems of such polls (ie WP:RECENTISM) - loads of players from the last 20-25 years, very few from great Arsenal teams in the 1930s. Even the few who are there are not as high as they should be objectively (eg Alex James). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Polls are just random information and this is just listcraft. Govvy (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Official poll or not, it is subjective opinion and limited input to select random few so list contains bias, not neutrally encyclopaedic. Whether the opinion is from one person or 10,000 gooners, it is still opinion and therefore fails WP:NPOV (besides, no Fibreglass or van Persil - and yet Rat Rice (sic) made the list!). Official poll next year will yield entirely different list. At best this could be listed as 50 greatest Arsenal players as polled by Arsenal.com subscriber's in 2008 which would be equally non-notable, but at least accurately describe the contents. Probably contains inaccurate claims anyway; who'd believe there are tens of thousands of Arsenal fans, let alone that many subscribers to their website:-)-- Club Oranje Talk 09:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: NPOV shouldn't be a problem here. We cover the Academy Awards which is basically the result of a poll of a large group of people. Such lists should be judged on some other criteria one of which would be the notability of the organization that made the poll. It might still be delete worthy, but not for being non-neutral. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference with the Academy Awards is that the recipient is accorded a recognised honour in the same way that football players are awarded Ballon d'Or and similar, and we record that as an ecyclopaedic recognition for such. This list is simply a fanbase poll of no official standing in the same way that a movie buff site may run a poll on who their readers consider to be the best e.g. Australian actors ever were. Lists such as this are not worth the paper they are (not) written on.-- Club Oranje Talk 07:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. An unencyclopaedic article based entirely on opinion. Although there's no doubt that these players are great, there's no set grounds given for their inclusion or ranking. It would be almost impossible to make this conform to Wikipedia standards, especially WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Bettia   (rawr!)  12:16, 8 January 2009 (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.