Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players considered the greatest of all time


 * 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.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

List of association football players considered the greatest of all time

 * – ( View AfD View log  of association football players considered the greatest of all time )

This article is against all Wikipedia's guideline. In very big short: It is perfect WP:Hoax which has multiple other issues such like WP:Weasel etc.. I have started discussion in various places to correct this article (for example here, here or here. Me and other also users reported this page plenty times to administrators that the page is very often vandalised and require better security (+ asking about warning for vandals by short blocades). As result that this page still even is not securited (admins ignore all my reports and engagings) I have to say: there certainly appears to be very strong ownership issues around these parts, daring to even question anything here is not worth the resulting indignation. ,, ,  - You all have agreed each other that this page should be delted. What do you think about my general points and comments on other pages about this article? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely arbitrary choice of subject experts, should also include 19th century players, should include players not written about much in English. But all of that would verge into original research. If the article is kept, it should be cut down to the essentials, which is the "See also" section that mentions other people's lists. Those may not be any better than ours, as the whole thing is subjective, but we shouldn't pretend our own WP:SYNTH is more authoritative than those expert-curated ones. —Kusma (t·c) 11:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Such a pity as a huge amount of effort has gone into this article but it is a case of WP:OR / WP:SYN.  I would support a new article that chronicled "the most notable lists" of the "Greatest football players of all time" (i.e. only notable lists, and each one reproduced faithfully and kept separate from the others).  Such an article would be titled differently as "Lists of association football players considered the greatest of all time", to clarify that even a single highly notable list, could never be considered definitive (it would be a POV-Fork). Britishfinance (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This article should look like: Historical rankings of presidents of the United States; very different title, very different content, and not OR/SYN. Britishfinance (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * DELETE - the article is skewed based on how much effort people are going to put into looking for sources, particularly when significant number of primary sources being used are not actually articles, lists, or any significant reliable source but instead isolated tweets with no context (or little). The addition of the "count" of sources is particularly problematic levels of synth as it has been significantly skewed to modern sources. I wouldn't even use that kind of sourcing on their primary articles, preferring actual reliably published material. Koncorde (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep on (I don't believe it) WP:OSE grounds: we do tend to keep these sort of articles on the flipside, and this one is well-sourced. See Articles_for_deletion/List_of_automobiles_considered_the_worst, List of films considered the best, List of films considered the worst, Category:Lists of worsts. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a significant difference between the articles as presented. The worst cars list in particular is not actually a list as much as a series of entries on multiple vehicles through hiatory and likely would qualify as an actual article. There is no denial that the creation of an article about the subject of Greatest Footballer might exist or should exist, but that a list of footballers (particularly in its current format) is not being met. In addition the comment about "well sourced" for this article must ignore that the significant proportion of sources are twitter, and by people of no significant knowledge or reputation, nor presented in context (it is unclear if they have changed opinion, what date or time etc and requires significant upkeep and maintenance for people's subjective opinions). A few may hold up to scrutiny, most less so.
 * A fair point. There aren't many Twitter references - using the find function brings up only eight of over 100 - but the article needs cleanup. I'm in favour of something along the lines of WP:TNT, but I want to make the point: even if this gets deleted, I don't think its deletion should preclude someone from trying to write a better article. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem with a future article that chronicled the most notable lists of "the greatest footballers" (they are out there); however this article is not such a list. It fails basic WP:PAG (WP:OSE is an essay, not policy); if this article wasn't deleted, then we should drop WP:OR and WP:SYN for sports.  If someone did an article like this on greatest U.S. Presidents, it would get deleted as WP:OR.  What this article should look like is this: Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Britishfinance (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. This gets discussed in pretty much every sport. But tighten up the criteria. Agents and club presidents are hardly ever unbiased, plus there should be a sizable number of supporting votes/opinions (one is definitely not enough). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: We already have this type of article for sport people what you are talking about (see: Comparison of top chess players throughout history) but if we decide create smilar article for soccer players we should do it from start point (for example in sandbox for the wikiproject). Criteria for experts could be based on this one source but frankly this type of article for soccer players would be very very much harder than it seems be (for every other sport, even team it would be much easier). How do you explain fact that Magico Gonzalez is a player wiedly compared to Pele and Maradona but he never played in any good proffestional club? And how do you explain fact that  Magico Gonzalez is idol of Diego Maradona meanwhile Maradona in vulgar way mock Cristiano Ronaldo? It is proof why Wikipedia should not going to be focussed on the recentism and even forking of other lists would make no sense (Magico Gonzalez is not listed in none of these lists despite fact Maradaona complemented him dozen times). This list is biased speciffically due to fact some old players (outside Maradona and Pele who are also popular in social media after FIFA Player of the century event already) get reputation only in old book sources/scholarships, not in Internet sources; for example this list do not include important Di Stefano's teammate from South America who is considered by some as better than Pele; Di Stefano get only one notable reference where surprinsgly Eusebio give him better reputation than for Pele and Garrincha.
 * Beyond that this list has been so absurdly buthered by pople who make personal favouritism that it list look like very strong ownship. Semingly the article seems be partly sourced but really this is simply hoax based on WP:OSE. Calling this very poor article "sourced" for this subject actually is amusing Dawid2009 (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom as pure opinion piece, no matter how many 'experts' are cited. GiantSnowman 08:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I could see a justification for such an article if it was based on national/international polls/surveys like the film one linked above, but one based largely on the opinions of individual people, often of no great importance (no offence to Santiago Formoso, but he seems to have been a relatively run-of-the-mill player, so I'm not sure why we should give any weight to his opinion of who the greatest player was) isn't sustainable IMO.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is titled as the players CONSIDERED to be the greatest. By definition it is a recording of opinions. No editor is claiming that any of these players are the greatest. They are merely citing the opinions of others to claim that people consider these players to be the greatest. If taken in that respect, there should be no issue with this list, as it clearly states that it is a list of players who are considered by others to be the greatest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vercors63 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This article feels more like a Reddit article on greatest players; disparate POV sources (some not even encyclopedic). WP:PAG like WP:OR and WP:SYN are part of what separate WP from online site and blogs.  This article should be deleted/WP:TNT'ed and replaced with something like this: Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Britishfinance (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By definition it is a recording of opinions - that is quite true, but as it stands it seems that anyone's opinion is considered valid. If Tony Cascarino did an interview and made a throwaway comment the best player of all time was his former Gillingham team-mate Dave Shearer, would that be appropriate to include here?  Of course not, but as it stands it would be valid content for this article, which is nonsense (although he was a good player :-)) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, looking at the category, "Lists of sports superlatives", this appears to be the only one that could be seen as "subjective", i'm also confused why there aren't more like this for each of the sports eg. greatest players for cricket, baseball, all the football codes etc, etc, is it that there are problems with having this sort of article? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, Opinion piece, Not encyclopaedic. The article is entirely subjective, the so called experts are not experts, they are random players, managers and occasional commentators. Not one of the 'experts' has any sort of qualification to back up any claim. Belongs on someone's homepage, or Reddit or Tumblr page. Club Oranje T 14:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So WP:FIXIT. The Independent: Pelé has been voted the greatest footballer of all time, Sky Sports: Messi? Ronaldo? Pele? Maradona? Who is the greatest of all-time?, Daily Mirror: Big debate: Where does Lionel Messi rank among the greatest footballers ever?. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Fix what ecactly? It's an opinion piece full of random people's opinions. All I could possibly do is add my opinion since the greatest of all time is not even listed. At least I am a Sports Scientist focussed on football so thère there might be some sort of basis of selection albeit unencyclopaedic. Non of these commentators have even seen half the candidates, and most footballers played in a different era. Which is the best fruit...Apples or oranges? It's a bollocks article designed to reduce the value and credibility of Wikipedia. Club Oranje T 05:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're totally missing the point. Lists have been published in the media. Whatever the current state of the article, that satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE: "The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, the article should remain.Sadsadas (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, we're an encyclopedia, not Buzzfeed to make ratings of everything. That's in addition to the method of determining experts being unsalvageably original research, there's just no way to pull a list from more than one source and have anything resembling a consistent, non-OR definition who's an expert and who's not; I've seen enough football, can I be an expert too? In such case, I vote for Arjen Robben because all those CUTTING INSIDE MEMES! Max Semenik (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subjective, ill-informed opinion piece. Hmlarson (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Observation. If the verdict is to delete, also note that there's a List of ice hockey players considered the greatest of all time and a template titled "Greatest sportspeople". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The "See also" section of your NHL article (e.g. 100 Greatest NHL Players, The Hockey News' Top 100 NHL Players of All Time), is what the NHL article "should" be a chronicle of (i.e. each notable list, listed separately); as structured, this NHL article is also WP:OR/WP:SYN and should be deleted. We are an encyclopedia, not redditt. Britishfinance (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is clearly a mash up of WP:OR and WP:POV. In other words WP:SYNTH Not encyclopedic whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:SYNTH. The one who creates pages (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2019 (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.