Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current CFL team rosters


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  00:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

List of current CFL team rosters

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN and goes against WP:TG to boot as a list page. Let&#39;srun (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football. Let&#39;srun (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems patently obvious this type of article should be okay - we even have a category for them at Category:Lists of current team rosters. The WP:TG argument I don't buy either as these can easily be un-templated and transcluded from the main team's page if needed. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, for several reasons. (1) The vast majority of CFL players are notable, and WP:NLIST states that Notability of lists is based on the group; (2) all the transactions, news, etc. that make up these teams are very widely covered; (3) there are independent websites that track all CFL teams' rosters, e.g. TSN and footballdb; (4) your citation of WP:TG notes that Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or "See also" section list can perform the same function – there is nothing else that can perform this function; and (5) if all else fails, then I think we should WP:IAR keep this as it is immensely useful to both readers and editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful navigational aid. ~WikiOriginal-9~  ( talk ) 20:27, 31 January 2024 (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.