Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Eintracht Frankfurt international footballers


 * 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. v/r - TP 20:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Eintracht Frankfurt international footballers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Classic case of overlistification. Club already has a more general list of players, which is perfectly acceptable. No need for a seperate article on internationals. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating this page for similar reasons:
 * J Mo 101 (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom - these lists are overkill. GiantSnowman 12:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Couldn't the content from these instead be incorporated into "List of xx F.C. players"-type lists, like at List of Birmingham City F.C. players? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't want sound weird but why is this article on the deletion list and articles like List of Bristol Rovers F.C. internationals, List of Burnley F.C. internationals or List of Gillingham F.C. players (25–49 appearances) are not? Don't get me wrong: I don't want to see these articles deleted either. Just give me a hint what I can do to improve it to make it worth keeping and I'll see what I can do. Cheers -Lemmy- (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The first two (Bristol Rovers/Burnley) are a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, though I would advise the nominator to also take them to AfD, depending on the consensus here. As for improvement, why not create a List of Eintracht Frankfurt footballers, which features every player to have played for them - which is what the Gillingham list, and its sister (brother? sibling!) articles do. I'd be happy to lend a hand to that, should I have time. Such lists are encouraged by us over at WP:FOOTBALL, as shows! GiantSnowman 22:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I have nothing against the content being integrated into the already-existing List of Eintracht Frankfurt players article. Several featured lists of this kind such as this indicate players who have been capped whilst playing for their club. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (for time being): I see where the problem is here. We already have the List of Galatasaray S.K. footballers, into which the nominated one could eventually be incorporated. However the problem is that, same as many other club players lists, this one is olso limited by +100 appereances.  If the list was not limited, then we would have a full list of Galatasaray players, with no need for specific other lists (like this foreigners one), something I did with Partizan and Red Star lists, where I included all players, not having a random inclusion criterium.  Now, we discussed this already in the past, and I like to point out that as much as for some editors the lists of imports are not much interesting, in many other points of the globe, they are, so probably in Turkey the idea of having listed all foreign players of some club makes perfect sense.  So, in my view, either we encourage from now on the creation of complete lists which will not be limited by some random inclusion criterium, or otherwise we could allow this sort of lists to exist, if wikified and sourced, of course.  As you can see, I prefer to have one complete list instead of many, and that is what I would encourage to do, however if there is no such for some particular case, I kind of regreat that the work done on this, and similar, lists, is just deleted. FkpCascais (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with one complete list for clubs is that the list would be too long and contravene WP:ARTICLESIZE. The solution is to group players by their appearances, this can be seen in the Manchester United lists which are all of featured standard, they separate the players by less than 25 appearances, 25-99 and 100+ appearances. This is the best practice in my opinion and I would encourage the editor of the Frankfurt list to follow this model, and other editors as well. NapHit (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know how they are separated by +/- X apperances in two lists, that is what I support, no problem with that, the problem I mention is when lists are only done for the +X part, ignoring the rest, thus making legitime to make other sort of lists with different inclusion criteriums. We definitelly agree over this, the only difference is that I am not so sure that by simply deleting these lists we will be encouraging the creation of complete ones. FkpCascais (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Merge to' List of Eintracht Frankfurt players. Edinburgh  Wanderer  00:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The master list already includes nationality, so I see no need for a merge and little value in this kind of specialized sublist.  Ideally, the master list would eventually be sortable for nationality, so that a reader could essentially duplicate the information here.  I recognize that there are article size issues, but I think User:NapHit's approach is better for that issue.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - both lists are (before I added references to the two Norwegian internationals that played for Eintracht) unreferenced, and violates WP:OR. I would encourage and support both lists if they were well referenced, but unfortunately they aren't. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2012 (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.