Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football clubs with home-grown players policy


 * 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. Further discussion about title and scope can continue on talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

List of football clubs with home-grown players policy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Contested PROD; this appears to be non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT. This has come out of a discussion at WP:BLPN - please see a related CfD. GiantSnowman 16:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I think such a list would be interesting, but unfortunately WP:INTERESTING is an argument to avoid in AfD discussions and not a criterion for notability of a subject. – PeeJay 19:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said at the BLP noticeboard, the right answer here is to rename the article to home-grown player rule and rewrite it to be about UEFA's, the English Premier League's, and indeed the Hurlingham Polo Association's (Yes, it's not just Association football.) home-grown player rules. Here are two sources to start you off, but even a modicum of effort with what's above &#x21D7; will turn up more, including books on sports law and resolutions of the European Parliament. Uncle G (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is already an article on Cantera which is about Spanish youth academies, this information is definitely notable though. This article maybe isn't the best form to have it in but it should be somehwere on wikipedia. Maybe Segregation in football could be the artice title (or a variant). That could include Rangers and a Danish second division club I remember reading about which wouldn't play Africans (I'm sure some others as well). And possibly issues with South Africa and the U.S. I don't think the current name is particularly good though because the term "home-grown players policy" isn't the correct one. A club could play a team full of home-grown players that weren't necessarily from there own country. And many clubs have policies on producing as many home-grown players as possible, just to benefit the team rather than for any other reason. Adam4267 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article was originally known as List of ethnically nepotistic football clubs but it wasn't clear enough what the article was about. TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - A ridiculous title but to be fair it does actually represent the subject better than home-grown players policy which isn't what this article about. In my opinion, this article is (or should be) about clubs who include or exclude certain groups of players based on a cultural, nationalistic, ethnic, religious, racial (etc.) identity. Or Segregation in football (Segregated football clubs?)
 * Comment - The article was originally known as List of ethnically nepotistic football clubs but it wasn't clear enough what the article was about. TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - A ridiculous title but to be fair it does actually represent the subject better than home-grown players policy which isn't what this article about. In my opinion, this article is (or should be) about clubs who include or exclude certain groups of players based on a cultural, nationalistic, ethnic, religious, racial (etc.) identity. Or Segregation in football (Segregated football clubs?)


 * Comment - This article is nothing to do with any actual "home-grown player rule". It's to do with clubs only buying/playing players of a particular nationality/ethnic background. Bilbao only buy/play Basque players, but those players do not have to be "home-grown" by Bilbao themselves. Furthermore, this is not a "rule" per se, it's just a policy that particular clubs abide by. – PeeJay 20:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: As PeeJay said. Where is the stuff on home-grown. I thought home-grown meant came from your Academy. Plus I do remember (forgot who) that Chivas bought an American born Mexican into there team once. So not really "home-grown". --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this seems similar to Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs, which was deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per concerns about the ambiguous meaning of "home grown". Number   5  7  08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's only titled home-grown because people suggested it should be, I'd like to keep the article but under a title similar to List of football clubs with nationalistic selection policy or similar. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Like the original title of 'List of ethnically nepotistic football clubs', your proposed third title doesn't actually make any sense. GiantSnowman 12:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe Clubs with certain player signing policy. But Steaua for example isn't known for that. The chairman might change his mind in a year. So should the club really be on the list? -Koppapa (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (and possibly rewrite per Uncle G). I'm the one who opened the CfD on Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs. But I think, as Uncle G writes, that there is room here for an article, and (apparently unlike him) see no reason why that article can't be a list. The fact that certain clubs have a policy of only hiring certain kinds of players is notable, as shown by the fact that newspapers write about it. We haven't found an ideal name for it, but that's not a reason to delete the article wholesale - "home-grown" isn't offensive the way "nepotistic" was. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - "home-grown players" is misleading because clubs like Chivas or Bilbao do not only employ playing staff that were born locally (or only playing staff that were trained by the club's youth system). I am wary of listing clubs that appear to have this policy (adherence appears to be selective in most cases) and much prefer an article discussing FIFA or various FA policies on the matter like UncleG suggested. Jogurney (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * weak keep WP:NOTESAL The clubs exist, the clubs have policies that dictate certain hiring practices, those practices have been discussed in reliable sources. The criteria for the list needs to be explicit and tight so there is not any subjectivity on if a particular team should be included or not. Additionally for a list such as this where membership might be controversial, reliable sources should be included on a per-entry basis Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2012 (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.