Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football (soccer) players by nickname


 * 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 as the prevailing opinion is that it not appropriate content. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  08:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

List of football (soccer) players by nickname

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unmaintainable list that seems based totally on original research and has little verifibility. --Jimbo[online] 22:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note related Afd by nominator: Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople by nickname (3rd nomination). MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am dissappointed you didn't start off the discussion page of this article before bringing it to Afd, as you knew I was online and had created the list per this discussion, started by me tonight and posted in by yourself. I was monitoring the discussion but you managed to list it for Afd before I could even reply there. But I will attempt to argue the article's case here at Afd. Had you opened the talk page with the above concerns, I could have demonstrated verifiability very quickly, for example with sources I found just tonight:
 * Vincenzo Montella "the aeroplane"
 * Julio Ricardo Cruz "the gardener"
 * Peter Hutton "Pizza"
 * Marco Materazzi "Matrix"
 * Georgi Hagi "Maradona of the Carpathians"
 * And I deliberately picked players I wasn't sure of, obviously I could have done the easy ones aswell such as "goldenballs" and "the special one". Thoughts? MickMacNee (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you add the references to the list, and add the easy ones too. It's still unmaintainable. --Jimbo[online] 00:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless this gets WP:SNOWED, I have five days to add them, so if I feel it has to be done because their presentation above is insufficient to answer your nomination reasons about sourcing/OR/verifiability enough to garner a withdrawal or change of nomination reason, then I probably, (but grudgingly as I was doing other stuff), do it.
 * As for being unmaintainable, I don't see the problem, perhaps you can expand what you mean. The article history to date doesn't show any edit wars suggesting it is a frequent target of vandalism or controversy over content, it has never required protection or outside opinion, and we already know the talk page has never been started with any issue about the article, least of all its accuracy or an inability to maintain it, so what is the problem?


 * The worse that ever seems to have happened to it quality concern wise until now is that it was tagged as unreferenced (when in actual fact it had references, just not many), which I think I've shown above is not an insurmountable problem that moves it into the candidates for deletion ball park. Not being maintainable, whatever that might mean, is also not an explicit reason for deletion in the deletion policy. The onus I believe is on not feeding the trolls/vandals by deleting articles they mess with, and improving articles that can be improved. Deletion is a last resort for articles that have no hope of ever being improved. MickMacNee (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. If the maintenance issue is about the possibility of ending up listing every footballer's nickname, as you seem to indicate in the related Afd noted above ("Could potentially be a list of every athlete that has an article"), then I would point you to the reply made to Peanut about inclusion criteria and long lists. MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Agreed per nom. Govvy (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no inclusion criteria, strictly this list could be 33,000 entries long if every footballer with a wikipedia entry was included; unreferenced; many nicknames aren't even relevant; and most of all unencyclopedic. Peanut4 (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria are:
 * Does a player have a nickname?
 * Is it verifiable in reliable sources?
 * The criteria for inclusion in this list is no different to any other list on wikipedia. If the issue is not to include all 33,000 players, I would say that:
 * Just because a list could get long is not a valid reason to delete a list (not that this list would probably get that long, see next points). Wikipedia has some extremely long lists.
 * I doubt very much that reliable independant sources (i.e. not forums, blogs, fanzines, his best mate etc) could actually be found for the nicknames for all 33,000 players, hence failing the inclusion criteria above. And if they can, see point 1.
 * If it was decided on the talk page that this possible problem could be an issue in the future, a third point could be added to the inclusion criteria, for example, must have played in a top flight division.
 * MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a far enough argument, however, your response "Is it verifiable in reliable sources?" isn't true. There are only three players on that list whose nickname is verified by a source. Peanut4 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See the list of sources I found just tonight, in reply to the nom above. MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

*Keep It is a verifiable and real world topic. Lacking sources when sources could clearly be found and added to the article is not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:PROBLEM. The article has some sources, it is not as alleged, unsourced original research, or not verifiable. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic. -- Alexf42 23:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please expand your rationale per the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "It is unencyclopedic"
 * As in "does not belong in a serious encyclopedia". Totally subjective list, players can have many nicknames, applied by their family, childhood friends, teammates or media. It is not needed to define who they are, and definitely not needed in a list. -- Alexf42 02:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you got any evidence to show that any nickname in this list has been added subjectively or because it was "applied by their family, childhood friends, teammates", rather than because, as is supported by policy, it has been used by, and is verifiable in, multiple reliable sources? (or more crucially, it is possible to be shown such, as demonstrated above) If you have, you are entirely free to tag it as requiring a source, and remove it if one is not found. To me, this just looks like a personal opinion of worthiness, and not really an explanation of the term "unencyclopoedic" to bring it out of a subjective basis itself, a position discouraged at Afd per the above essay.
 * On the idea that nicknames are not defining information needed in an encyclopoedia, I find it strange that terms like 'Goldenballs' would become so universally reported as to generate over 30,000 Google (.com mind, not even .co.uk) hits for David Beckham "Golden balls" -wikipedia if it is an irrelevance to what defines him such as listing his favourite colour or other such truly trivial information (2,600 hits, top result a kids website).
 * As for nicknames certainly not being needed in a list, other sportsperson nickname lists have survived Afd's a collective 7 times now (see the talk page), so, with due regard to WP:OTHERSTUFF, but lacking any demonstration of how this list is any different from those with regard the deletion measure of not being "encyclopoedic", I can't be persuaded by this argument at all. MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - As AlexF said, Unencyclopedic. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I have to request expansion per my reply to Alexf, as "unencyclopoedic" is a very subjective term, it can mean different things to different people, and as such, I or anybody else can't possibly know by what measure you determine what information is or isn't encyclopoedic, or what if anything in your eyes could be done to make this list "encyclopoedic". Personally, I see it as being factual, verifiable information pertaining to notable subjects, therefore it is encyclopoedic (although I explicitly try to avoid this term as explained). It is hardly trivial information that would not find it's way into a paper encyclopoedia, and I wager that if I had a copy to hand to check, that in addition to wikipedia, they would also include a player's nickname in their paper pages. At wikipedia, we have the advantage of being able to group related information into lists as has been done here, so I don't see what is not worthy either about hosting this information, or it's presentation in a list. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopaedic, in the sense of being childish and meaningless: lacking value, as it can never be considered complete.  Is every "Danno", "Smudge", and "Jonesy" to be included?  Is one journalist coining an epithet once, or a manager's light-hearted reference to one of his players in the programme notes, to be considered verifiable.  There might be a case for a list of players whose "shirt name" is not their legal/family name, or a part of it, but not for a doomed attempt to collate all nicknames.  Kevin McE (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Every "Danno" and "Jonesy" need not be included, I went to actually remove any simle ones like this in response to show they don't, but I actually found very few entries of this type of simple contraction currently in the list. I have no problem if you remove them, the two 'Keano's for example, and I'm sure nobody else would. Deleting the list based on their presence however I would object to, as throwing the baby out with the bath water. I would argue Smudger is a valid entry as not everyone is probably aware this is a common nickname for people called Smith, and is thus part of 'football culture'. If the argument is about criteria for inclusion, what is wrong with the inclusion criteria I posted above? Collating all nicknames is clearly not going to be the aim of the list, per the standard requirements of satisfying notability and verifiability MickMacNee (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick search on google shows a lot of other people other than Alan Smith to be nickname Smudge, including at least two cricketers. So it's certainly not unique to Alan Smith. Per my note below, I would expect, if kept, this list should include nicknames that are either unique or as good as unique. Smudge is a common nickname in England for people called Smith. Peanut4 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - though I hate to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason, it's worth noting that the equivalent list for cricketers was resoundingly kept at AfD. This list, if properly referenced, can be just as encyclopedic, and there's certainly something which seems arbitrary about keeping one but deleting the other. I would, however, suggest some limiting factor (only listing players who have played full internationals, for instance). Grutness...wha?  00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That cricket list should partly serve as a guide what not to do, if we do keep this list. Most are unreferenced. Who is to say which are right or not? And picking out one poor example is Stuart MacGill. Nicknamed "Stuey" and "Macca". Now there's a surprise. If the result is keep, it should be given a proper inclusion criteria not to make the list unwieldy, but also limit it to nicknames that are commonly known and/or football-relevant. Peanut4 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an argument for improvement, not deletion, and to stress again, the idea that this even needed improvement was not raised until this Afd, barring the no refs tag applied to an article with some refs. Even 'insufficient refs' tags are meant to prompt improvement, not to act as a catalyst for nomination for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - effectively trivia, not encyclopaedic content. Sorry. - fchd (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: About this type of "nickname list" article in general (see this AfD's talk page): 1) There are so many fake entries in them generally that it is unbelievable (even if that is not the case with this list right now, it will be eventually, since no one can own an article, and it will inevitably be edited by people with silly (or worse) notions. 2) Practically nothing is sourced in them. 3) All of the arguments the nominator summarizes are accurate, as are those of many other commentators here (unencyclopedic, trivia, etc.). 4) Many (most?) of the "nicknames" in these lists are not nicknames at all (i.e. monickers used by the person or commonly applied to the person), but rather are random journalists' one-off turns of phrase that an editor here or and editor there personally decided was a "nickname" (WP:OR). 5. Nothing valid and of encyclopedic value will be lost, since the verifiable nicknames can/should be added to the infoboxes (or elsewhere, if no infobox) of the articles to whom they apply; and if the person is not notable enough for an article they aren't really notable enough to be in a list article either. If someone out there on the Net wants to find out the real name of "Slasher" Cockburn, some minor-league sports figure that would fail WP:N (or vice versa, looking for so-and-so's nick), that is what Google is for.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 6. Articles like this are absolute magnets for subtle (and sometimes blatant) vandalism. I know this from direct experience with List of snooker player nicknames. It's hard enough to police the infoboxes of notable players, but keeping clever personal attacks on living subjects out of a list like this is simply impossible. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be quite happy to cowardly suggest that wikipedia content should be dictated by vandals, some of us have more backbone. Your arguments about indiscriminate information are quite obviously irrlelvant, and your arguments about notability are also addressed above. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC) MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S.If you think there is an entry in the list of the form "Slasher" Cockburn, then why don't you highlight it with a {citation needed tag}, rather than making stuff up to create a completely false argument. After all, Afd is meant to debate the content of articles, not what you think is the content of articles. 17:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal for group nomination See talk page section. MickMacNee (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete with spite I have changed my vote. In the face of such stupidity in this Afd, I find that I frankly do not care whether this list survives or not. The nominator/deleters/closer will have to reconcile their idiot reasoning with the resulting stupidity of having no list for footballers despite several lists for other sportspeople existing (see talk page), and their cowardice of not creating a group nomination when their supposed arguments apply to all nickname lists (if you can call "unencyclopoedic" an argument). This is despite the fact that obviously their arguments were complete horseshit, from people who have quite clearly never read the deletion policy. There was the distant hope that the closer would take this into consideration and only count the valid arguments, but I doubt even that to be honest enough to not even wait the mandatory 5 days. So fuck it, let the morons rule the roost, the deletion policy can get fucked. Frankly, I doubt these people have ever read it, if they can even read at all. MickMacNee (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a bit of civility here. Just because another editor nominates an article for deletion, doesn't mean you have to resort to thinly disguised personal attacks. Peanut4 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Lists like this generally can be sourced; I can't speak for world players, but in American sports nicknames can usually be sourced quite satisfactorily. Given proper time and effort to do sourcing, this would hardly qualify as original research. matt91486 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but prepare for the possibility that it will get deleted. It's a valid enough topic, but I recommend that MickMacNee take this to a user page and retool it.  I can appreciate your frustration... a lot of people seem to be typing the word "unencyclopaedic".  I disagree with the first person who argued that as a reason for deletion, and I wouldn't worry about the three persons after that.  That aside, however, it's still unsourced.  Another nominated article had 298 sources, which appears to be about 295 more than this one has.  Besides being unsourced, the arrangement (some nicknames arranged in alphabetical order, some not, but that seems optional) makes it useless.  Anyway, take it down, work on it.  It's no less encyclopedic than any of the other articles about association football.  Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - What I had planned to do is to propose a transfer of list from list of sportspeople by nicknames, this because that list is becoming too big, therefore it bogs down older computers. Much of the source can be taken from that list. Jay Pegg (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, terrible idea for a list, and very hard to source properly. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - A player's nickname is not a defining characteristic, as they are rarely unique to that one person. In fact, I can't think of a single player who is better known by a nickname than their proper name (I'm discounting Brazilian players here, as their common names are usually nicknames). Ultimately, this is not an encyclopaedic topic. – PeeJay 10:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The list is a quality research point for someone who wants to research at a future date, nicknames can be easily referrenced too, if say someone doesn't have a reference on the list. This list has a lot of potential and would greatly improve any encyclopedia with reference points to research.

What is the point of a wiki if you take down points of validated reference?--77.97.70.74 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2008 (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.