Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of footballers born in Scotland who have played for an international team other than Scotland


 * 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. Unless I've missed one, it's not clear to me that sources really cover this as a class, rather than as individual examples (which is perhaps a pedantic distinction, but perhaps not). That said, the argument that it's a non-encyclopaedic cross categorization falls flat on its face; the nationality of players on a national team is not a random category, List of footballers born in Scotland who prefer dark lagers over light lagers this is not. So, policy wise both positions are fairly weak. Augmenting that, the headcount is about tied. I can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Wily D 07:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

List of footballers born in Scotland who have played for an international team other than Scotland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I wish I was nominating just for the ridiculous title, but I'm not - there is recent consensus at another AfD that these kind of articles are non-notable. GiantSnowman 12:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:N. Examples,, , . Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a valid list of people (the members of the list meet WP:N) that is in a category of (many) similar lists. I also think the title is hilarious, but it does describe the list. Richigi (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Like many lists that clutter WP, this adds nothing to the individual bios where the meat is. No discussion of what country of birth had to do with career, either; not that one could seriously be had.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:39, 2 Deecember 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * WP:TLDR - but if you're arguing that the consensus in the related, recent AfD carries no weight then you're wrong. GiantSnowman 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again - TLDR. Please can you be more consise? GiantSnowman 12:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. (I have redacted the lengthier previous discussion that you didn't read.)
 * 1. This is an interesting, non-trivial, reasonably referenced article that adds to what individual bios provide.
 * 2. Although this type of article may not be some people's cup of tea, it would be missed by others. Wikipedia serves different types of reader.
 * 3. The nominator cites two "analogous" AfDs, but doesn't point up relevant dissimilaries to this article: one was unreferenced, and the other was a project of disproportionate scope. I have read these AfD decisions carefully. While there was consensus for deleting these specific articles, no properly explicit discussion arrived at a consensus that "all Wikipedia articles with this format are trivial." These articles were ultimately deleted on their individual merits. Some language in the AfDs may have led to an understandable perception that the class of article was trivial but that perception is nonetheless a mischaracterizing over-generalization.
 * 4. In short, I strongly disagree that a formal policy emerged in these AfDs. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Another example, several Scottish born players inducted into the US Soccer hall of fame Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete trivia, adds nothing to Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A whole article in a national newspaper yesterday based on this subject . Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid, sourced, reasonably-sized list.  Th e S te ve   09:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I would prefer had more prose and list tidied up, however i believe that Per J Morrison there is enough notability on the subject and could be improved. Blethering   Scot  23:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The list even has reliable verifiable references. IJA (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd Keep - just seems like an inverse one of these: List of England international footballers born outside of England. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that the equivalent article about the world's foremost footballing nation was deleted with comments such as "trivial" and "notability implausible" without anyone even giving any evidence of having looked for sources, but this one about what has become in recent decades a very minor force in world football attracts so many defenders. The blatant bias in our coverage of football appears to be continuing. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can certainly grant you that that other article may or may not have gone through a perfect AfD. But Wikipedia is not irreversible, for example if new evidence of notability comes before us all. You and the nominator appear to prefer to have the two articles dealt with as a general class: you both point to their similarities. But you seem to potentially be on different sides of the keep / delete debate. The nominator is arguing for deletion of all similar articles based on TYPE of article, you for bias if one is kept and the other not. BUT one current dissimilarity to that other article is the claim in its AfD write up that it was unreferenced. This article is, and that is relevant from a Wikipedia viewpoint. Now as to whether a proper literature search was not done in behalf of the other article, I would share with the results of my preliminary research which is that you are in fact correct: there is at least one very pertinent good WP:RS that should have been considered. But it wasn't, and you do show in the AfD log. So complaints of bias may be going a little too far. As such, it would be preferable to step back and deal with both articles separately and in a Wikipedian way. That said, so as far as that other article goes some eventual energy in getting it going again may be in order if 1. the correct procedure here (without finger-pointing and bias-mongering) highlights that the class of article is NOT trivial (as some contend, which is their right as an opinion, and one which I do not share at all) and 2. the Brazil article is drafted and referenced and submitted with that relevant fact presented for community review. Sorry if this is long, and also apologies if it seems to be criticising you (or indeed anyone), which is NOT my intention. This whole thing is a potential fiasco, and could have been shut down with a good WP:RS in the Brazil article. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Referenced, interesting, an ongoing subject of discussion in national newspapers. Can't see what the problem is save an unreasonable assumption that the logic applied to a similar but unreferenced article should be used here too. Ben   Mac  Dui  09:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that the reason given by most people in the Brazil deletion discussion was not that it was unreferenced, which could easily have been fixed by copying references from the individual players' articles, but that such a topic is inherently too trivial for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know a great deal about Brazil. Perhaps the subject is treated less seriously there. Perhaps, as your first post above is hinting at, there are simply fewer en-Wiki editors with a genuine interest in Brazil to defend the cultural position of that nation. Perhaps this is what you meant by "blatant bias".  Ben   Mac  Dui  20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more that many editors dismiss articles about not-British footballing topics as inherently trivial, and claim that notability is implausible, so call for deletion without any attempt to find sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that Anglospherism (which in football terms means dismissal of every other serious football nation) is the single biggest problem of English football culture and a very serious problem on the English Wikipedia generally. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be the problem in English football culture generally, but the specific problem on Wikipedia is British rather than English, as Scotland gets the same favourable consideration, which is denied to other nations (except maybe Wales and Northern Ireland), as England. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Phil Bridger: I acknowledge the points you are making and the useful dialog that has resulted. I am not canvassing you in either direction, but this is a friendly indication that I don't see that you have exercised your prerogative of explicitly declaring for keep / delete in respect of this specific article yet.FeatherPluma (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * REname to List of Scottish-born footballers who have played for other countries: Still a mouthful but slightly more succinct. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Phil and GiantSnowman, if we developed consensus on many of these lists before including Brazil, why make an exception for Scottish footballers. Secret account 00:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I was one of those who participated in the deletion-discussion on the Brazilian equivalent, and I stand by what I said there: "The Scottish list should be deleted too". I believe these kind of list are those that are mentioned in WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7: Wikipedia-articles are not "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations such as..." Mentoz86 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - as stated above. WP:NOT expressly prohibits this type of article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 states that "Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon" -- I would suggest that the fact there is repeated coverage of this issue in reliable sources suggests it is a "culturally significant phenomenon". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As Jmorrison230582 implies, the example given in the "express prohibition" text at WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 appears to be crafted so as to be irrefutably trite. Judge for yourselves whether this list is that "culturally insignificant." I favor the rename suggestion of Peterkingiron. Very interested to see how this AfD emerges, but reckon I'll disengage as I've given my opinion already. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The argument per WP:NOTDIRECTORY mentioned above is convincing. I don't see how this particular intersection of personal characteristics is a culturally significant (read: notable) topic. To establish that, we'd need a source discussing this issue as such (i.e., the issue of Scots playing for non-Scottish national teams), and no such source is cited in the article as far as I can tell.  Sandstein   12:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too unspecific, to put it simply Mikeo34 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 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.