Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Yugoslavia national football team goalscorers


 * 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 No Consensus to Delete but strongly suggest that an editing decision is made to move the article to List of Yugoslavia international footballers and expand, as suggested in this discussion. Davewild 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Yugoslavia national football team goalscorers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia isn't a sports statistics guide. There's no indication of why five goals is a meaningful cutoff, or why goals by the Yugoslavian team is more notable than any other country, or why the ethnicity of the players should be noted. (That's what the Serb/Croat/Macedonian indicator is after the player's name, right?) It's largely an unmaintainable list, as it would have to be updated after each game. There are no references given. Does it include active players or historical players? eaolson (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yugoslavia no longer exists. Its list of goalscorers is now "locked in time" as it was a national team that played from 1920 to 1941 and 1945 to 1992.
 * Somewhere in my brain I actually knew that. OK, a big "duh" moment for me. eaolson (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is five goals a meaningful cutoff? Pushing down to 4 and then to 3 would add exponentially greater numbers of names to the article. See List of England international footballers for an example. 25 caps is an even more meaningless cutoff, as scoring five goals seem to be fairly significant in international football, while it is hard to really judge the importance of 25 caps.
 * Why are goals for Yugoslavia more important than for other countries? I'm afraid this makes little sense. If I start an article about Rwanda, am I saying that it is more important than other countries? If someone wants to start similar articles for other countries, they should do so.
 * Ethnicity in Yugoslavia mattered. Plain and simple. There are reasons why Macedonians, Slovenes, and Albanians are under-represented in the list. Serbs and Croats dominated the team. If someone thinks that's POV, then they should remove that part of the list, not delete the article.
 * If it's such a problem to keep this article, I guess I could try copying List of Scotland international footballers (alphabetical) which lists both caps and goals in a sortable table. --Thewanderer (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. My main point is that this leads to a policy of creating an ever-growing series of List of (nationality) (sport) (statistic) articles. Down that road lies madness. Why not also create List of Yugoslavia national football players that fumbled a goal, as well? (or whatever, I know nothing about football) This isn't even a list of Yugoslavia national football team players, it's a List of Yugoslavia national football team players that have scored more than 5 goals. I don't doubt that ethnicity in Yugoslavia mattered, but there's no source given for the ethnicities listed, and they're not in the original reference. If the point of this article is to use football to point out that some ethnic groups were discriminated against, then it's original research and soapboxing. eaolson (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Goals scored is probably the most significant statistic for footballers other than number of international caps. If you're worried that this will lead to dozens of similar articles, well they're already here - even club football sides have similar articles. American football has dozens of articles with stats about current seasons. Why are you assuming any point to the article other than to list a country's top goalscorers for the national team? I would agree that the cutoff could be higher than 5 goals, and maybe this could be merged into an article about the national team.--Michig (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge. Sports statistics are encyclopedic, and I see nothing wrong with the article. A source is provided, so I don't see any valid arguments here for deletion. --Michig (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) ...but maybe merge into the team's article.--Michig (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, cannot find or imagine non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. Skomorokh  incite 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and for starters we don't need multiple whatever whatever, we need a third party source, per WP:V which trumps WP:N. Since such a source exists, A statistical history of football in Yugoslavia, our policies allow this article to exist.  There are also numerous ancillary sources which would support this article's sourcing and existence. Hiding T 18:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the dictates of WP:V are necessary, not sufficient conditions for an article. WP:N is the only sufficient measure of whether a subject should be included. So yes, this subjects needs to have nontrivial coverage in at least one reliable source. As for the sole source in the article, the coverage is not substantial enough to pass notability requirements.


 * If there are "numerous ancillary sources which would support this article's sourcing and existence", why be coy? Let's see 'em. Skomorokh  incite 18:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reread my comment. Also, Wikipedia policy never dictates, and WP:V actually does guide as to what we should have articles on, because it states we shouldn't have articles on topics for which no third party sources exist.  Since there is one in existence, we can have an article on this topic.  Notability was merely an extension of that which has been extended too far, and where guidance conflicts with policy, policy is deemed to have the stronger consensus.  And WP:NOT is the page for determining what we do not include.  All Wikipedia:Notability does is to guide as to measures for determining what we generally cover, it isn't exclusive, and is meant as a tool for people starting an article.  I recall that point being very clear when we discussed, wrote and adopted it as a guideline, not a policy. It was never intended as a deletion tool. Hiding T 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I've already listed one source found via a quick google search after you declared you not only couldn't find, but couldn't imagine such a source to exist. I don't think I'll be able to convince you that the others do too.  If you have library access, maybe you could seek the proof yourself.  Hiding T 18:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, maybe I'm being incredibly blond, but I cant see any link on this page or the article page to nontrivial coverage. Can you post the url in a reply here? Skomorokh  incite 18:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is me being blond. I had assumed books were still acceptable as reliable sources.  Could you clarify as to when that stopped being the case.  Hiding T 21:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see it now. In what way does A statistical history of football in Yugoslavia establish the notability of a list of Yugoslavian national football team goalscorers? Skomorokh  incite 22:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm being blond again. Wasn't it your contention that "this subjects needs to have nontrivial coverage in at least one reliable source", and that would denote notability?  Can you clarify what you mean for me.  I thought you were demanding that there be an independent source for this information that was non-trivial.  Can you clarify why this doesn't meet your standards, or have your standards in fact changed? Hiding T 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions again. I'm willing to presume that the book is a reliable source, and it is independent of this subject. Those are both necessary conditions for a source to establish notability of a subject. What's missing here is evidence that the book fulfills the non-trivial or significant coverage condition. From WP:N: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." I'll change my vote to keep if you can provide proof that the source meets this criterion for the specific subject of Yugoslavian national football team goalscorers. Skomorokh  incite 22:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a better idea. You go through and remove every source you haven't read from every article on Wikipedia, and when you've done that, I personally will delete this article. Hiding T 22:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How, pray tell is that a better idea? Each article stands or falls on its own merits. If you have a problem with policies and guidelines, here's not the place to dispute them. The connotation that other articles might not meet sourcability standards, and so we should not enforce those sourcability standards (if that is what you're getting at) is a pretty transparent appeal to WP:WAX/WP:ALLORNOTHING. Not going to win you any hearts and minds here. Skomorokh  incite 23:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not the one looking to change the policies and guidance, since I wrote key aspects of the policies and guidance we're discussing here. What we're arguing about is whether "I don't like it" is a good enough reason to delete.  You're "I don't like it" has moved to the point that you have now prejudged the new source.  I'm sorry it is an offline source and you don't have access to it, but as you have already stated you can't imagine such a source existing, I fail to see why we're still discussing the point.  Your lack of both an open mind and any imagination in the face of evidence to the contrary is unlikely to win over hearts and minds too.  Me, I care less about the article than I do about the thinking some people put into these debates. If you can't believe that a book entitled A statistical history of football in Yugoslavia contains the information needed to source this article, and is also an analysis of Yugoslavian football at both national and international level, and that that qualifies every hurdle you've put in the way, then you have pushed "I don't like" it to breaking point. Happy editing. Hiding T 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the by, if you wish to post your address, when I get the time I'll try and post relevant passages for you. Hiding T 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the by, since you state "this subjects needs to have nontrivial coverage in at least one reliable source" and one has been found, will you please amend your opinion to keep. Thank you, Hiding T 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment.I disagree. WP:V lists a minimum standard for a fact to be included. It seems to be stating that the fact must be verifiable by a reliable source, but not necessarily true (which would probably lead to original research). It's talking about the sourcing requirement for individual facts. It doesn't set a standard for article topics. By your reading, any list in any source would be fair game for duplication in Wikipedia. eaolson (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite strange how often in a deletion debate people will state delete per WP:V If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.,Articles for deletion/Orxata Sound System, Articles for deletion/Real-Time Recovery, Articles for deletion/The noob (3rd nomination) yet when someone tries to keep per WP:V, it suddenly doesn't apply. Hiding T 19:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I think I'm well aware of my own reading of WP:V, and I'm well aware it allows no such thing as you claim it to do so, and resent the implication that I've suggested other than my own words; namely that reliable sources exist to support the article in question. If we want to discuss the merits of WP:PAPER versus WP:INDISCRIMINATE, then by all means please do so, but let us at least be honest about it. Hiding T 19:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The cat stuck in a tree picked up by a local news story, and then CNN in a boring news night meets WP:V, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. WP:V trumps most policies but there are restrictions on it as well, including WP:NOT This is a Secret account 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If we were discussing a cat stuck up a tree I would understand your reasoning more. WP:NOT trumps most policies, but WP:IAR trumps that. We can play trumps all evening, it rather misses the point.  All we are doing is saying I don't like it or I like it.  Hiding T 21:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for historical reasons, and at the bottom, add refs to the appropriate lists for the countries that came out of Yugoslavia. MISSINGNO. was here. 20:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What does "historical purposes" mean. This is a Secret account 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure stats, fails WP:NOT This is a Secret account 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's informative, viable as a research tool, maintained, well written and sourced. In what way is it unencyclopedic? The article is not pure statistics as defined at WP:NOT, since it contextualises and is not long and sprawling.  Furthermore, WP:NOT is not a test, and inclusion of this article, besides all the other reasons I've noted for inclusion, helps correct the systemic bias which allows articles such as those found in Category:American football records and statistics, Category:Baseball statistics and Category:Basketball statistics.    Hiding T 21:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the articles there aren't lists like this is, if an article like List of Florida Marlins players who hit home runs gets created, I'll quickly AFD it, there isn't systemic bias. This is a Secret account 22:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to clarify the difference between List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 100 career touchdowns, List of National Football League players with at least forty career interceptions, List of Major League Baseball players with 20 triples, List of pitchers who have struck out 18 or more batters in a nine-inning MLB game and List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters. I can't see it. This list notes the players who have scored above a certain number of goals within international matches, which means they are representing their country, games that have been thought for years to represent the highest pinnacle of a footballers career. The US sports lists all seem to denote they have scored something at a club level, a tier of competition below, since they are not representing their country but rather their club. Can I just clarify that there is a difference between a country, which is a nation state typically recognised at the United Nations, and a state within the United States.  I hope it is not another example of systemic bias that we are comparing a local team within one country to a national team on the world stage.  Were we discussing List of Red Star Belgrade players who have scored winning goals, your comparison would be apt.  Given the somewhat insular nature of American sport, it is hard to find a comparison, but United States records in swimming is the closest I can get.  I look forward to that afd.  I'd be interested as to why we can have so many lists regarding statistics in sports which aren't even the national sport within the US, yet we can't have one list regarding statistics in the national sport of Yugoslavia, and also clarification as to why that is indeed not systemic bias.  Is sport in the US simply of a higher nature? Hiding T 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions.   —Hiding T 21:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and Keep. Move this to List of Yugoslavia international footballers or some such like article instead and keep it. Peanut4 (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a vote for merge and delete? Skomorokh  incite 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably. I'm a bit confused. Peanut4 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't see how, the target doesn't exist, and you can't merge and delete per the GFDL. Looks like a keep, rename and expand to me. Hiding T 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify then. This list needs changing to one containing a list of Yugoslav players not just goalscorers and renaming appropriately. Whether that rename and keep, or delete and merge, or whatever, the final article ought to be named something as above and include more than just a handful of indiscriminate scorers. Peanut4 (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot delete and merge, it violates a basic principle of the GFDL. Hiding T 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * a) Where does it say that on GFDL?
 * b) Okay, if you're being picky. Delete and start a new notable entry List of Yugoslavia international footballers or [[List of Yugoslavia international footballers (alphabetical) Peanut4 (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * a) It doesn't, we just need to keep the attribution, something which many people (such as me) are capable of doing when merging.
 * b) He's not being picky, he's being wrong. Yonatan talk 12:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - it's better than a category and is useful for anyone looking for a comprehensive list of this now defunct national teams' goalscorers. Yonatan talk 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to List of Yugoslavia international footballers, add in players with high numbers of caps. The information would be both useful and verifiable. The existence of a number of "List of xxxxland international footballers" articles adds weight to the case to Keep this information. On the other hand if it is decided that we are going to start deleting sports statistics articles from Wikipedia, perhaps we could begin at club level and work our way up to International level;-) King of the North  East  00:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, though a move to List of Yugoslavia international footballers to expand the scope may be advisable. List of Sweden international footballers is a featured list, and this article ought to be developed in a similar way. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)