Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian footballers (3rd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other recommendations that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Brazilian footballers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Needless article - just a list with no context, and not even clear as to who should be included. Already covered by Category:Brazilian footballers and/or Category:Brazil international footballers Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator Missed that article had survived previous AfDs with same criteria. Article does, however, need the context addressed before renaming as List of Brazilian national footballers. I think that this is an uncontentious move, and it's odd that it hasn't been done before. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think this is meant to be a List of players for the Brazilian national football team, but it doesn't say that anywhere. Based on the criteria as stated, any Brazilian footballer could be listed whether or not he or she has played for the national team. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and tighten the inclusion criteria. The case for the categories existing fails WP:CLN. This is part of a bigger series of Category:Lists of association football players by nationality and the links within Association football players.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly good list that is in no way made redundant by the existence of a category, but clarification of criteria as mentioned above would help. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as clearly notable and move to List of Brazil international footballers (as that appears to be the scope i.e. players who have played for the Brazilian national team) in line with the other articles at . GiantSnowman 11:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it targets nationality, part of Category:Lists of association football players by nationality as noted above. And the corresponding category, Category:Brazilian footballers, is likewise a subcategory of Category:Association football players by nationality. We should (and do) have lists of players by both nationality (as is standard for any profession) and by team, so feel free to create one for Brazil international and add it to Category:Lists of association football players by national team. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly a valid article/list subject. --Soman (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow keep per above. Please don't waste our time in the future with deletion nominations that don't address prior deletion results or relevant guidelines. The whole discussion in the prior AFD was about the complementary function of lists and categories per WP:CLN, on which basis the list was kept by overwhelming consensus. It would be one thing to expressly disagree with that result and give reasons why we should come to a different outcome notwithstanding the very clear guideline language, but you've failed to even show awareness of either the guideline or the content of the prior AFD while raising an argument it rebutted and rejected five years ago. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Didn't spot the template showing previous deletion debates. Thanks for being civil and assuming good faith. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading WP:BEFORE.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did assume good faith; I assumed your failure to do your due diligence was not willful obfuscation but was done innocently. And as you admit that you didn't see the prior discussion (despite posting a "3rd nomination", and despite the template displaying quite clearly once the discussion was posted), we don't have a disagreement of fact here that your nomination was made in innocent ignorance of relevant discussion and guidelines. You can now display your good faith by withdrawing your nomination so as to not waste further time on it, if you would not have made it had you been aware of the previous AFD and CLN. Or you can justify it by explaining why there should now be a different result notwithstanding those considerations if you persist in thinking deletion is appropriate even after seeing the counterarguments. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." NorthAmerica1000 16:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - clear context, i.e. international players. Fenix down (talk) 12:55, 18 June 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.