Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lincoln City F.C. 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The result was   WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 04:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Lincoln City F.C. players

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

List has four players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. EchetusXe 19:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I withdraw the nomination now that the article is vastly improved.--EchetusXe 17:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. --Michig (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable club with lots of notable players. An incomplete list is not a valid reason for deletion and the article has potential for growth.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Lincoln City is a decent size club, I can't see why this article can't be a good one, I am sure there are plenty of players who can go on the list. 1,000 short? I am sure around 100 players on it would suffice. Govvy (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm inclined to delete, thinking that perhaps Category:Lincoln City F.C. players can do that job.  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 09:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - something being incomplete is not a reason to delete. I'll happily start expanding this article when I have time. GiantSnowman 09:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but only with a stay of execution. What is the point in keeping an article that is started as a stub and never gets improved? I'd say if this doesn't get improved within a month or two, it should go. – PeeJay 12:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - has said they wish to improve the article; if they don't have time then my previous offer to do so myself still stands. GiantSnowman 12:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems like a perfectly valid list of particularly noteworthy players for a club with a lot of history. The introduction to the list should explain why this is not redundant to Category:Lincoln City F.C. players - the category includes every player who has played for the club (even just one match) whereas this list is only for those who have played a significant part in the club's history, along with details of what their contribution was (see also Categories, lists and navigation templates). @PeeJay - why should we impose an artificial timelimit on this - there is no WP:DEADLINE. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because without the threat of a deadline, where is the impetus to improve the article? Having an obviously incomplete article lying around just looks unprofessional. – PeeJay 13:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also these lists are not generally for "club-notable" players (certain achievements / appearances etc.), they should be for all players. GiantSnowman 13:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep List is notable and should be expanded not deleted. I don't follow your logic on this PeeJay. There are lots of articles on wiki that start out as stubs and are hardly expanded, by your reasoning they should be deleted too. GianttSnowman has already said he will work on the list and WP:DEADLINE makes it clear we don't work to a deadline. We should not be deleting potentially good material just because it is a stub. NapHit (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd been working on this offline for some time, and have now put my version into mainspace. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Struway's new version renders the nomination null and void.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2013 (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.