Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national football (soccer) teams 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   no consensus. and none on the horizon. StarM 02:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

List of national football (soccer) teams by nickname

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

the list is simply non-notable (and pointless). I can't really put this Afd nomination in better words rather that it fails wp:n. — Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nickname this list provides for Russia, for example, is pure BS; I suppose there are much more mistakes. Keeping this list is tolerable if and only if every entry in it is perfectly sourced. Max S em(Han shot first!) 10:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. GiantSnowman 11:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete nn, unsourced Ban  Ray  16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. List is sourced (see which was there in black and white in the notes section). Nicknames are notable, they are in regular use by multiple media sources. The nomination smacks of an WP:IDON'TLIKEIT drive by nomination of a long standing article, without even starting the talk page first. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but... What makes you think I nominated this for deletion simply because "I don't like it"? Ever thought that I might have nominated this because I felt like there was not enough significant and independent coverage regarding the topic of nicknames in football? The only thing we have that really elaborates on nicknames in football is from FIFA, which is hardly independent in this case. — Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 06:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. One article on fifa.com doesn't make a topic notable. If a national team has a regular nickname, that should be mentioned on that team's article. Just to point an example that is glaringly obvious to me, I have never heard of Scotland referred to as "The Bravehearts". That sounds like an Americanism to me. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To you and the russian, the presence of vandalism or nonsense edits are not a reason delete articles, ever. And I didn't point to the FIFA article as an example of notability, it is a response to the falsehood above that the entire list was unreferenced. So what if the Scotland team doesn't have a nickname - that's no reason to pretend nobody would ever want to find them out for other teams in a list format. Acknowledging that they do exist, but then imposing the rather ridiculous expectation of making people read every single national team article if they want to find out this information, without a valid policy reason to justify this, is again just not a valid reason to delete it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My contention is that the subject isn't notable in itself. I don't see why it is ridiculous to expect that someone who wants to know what the nickname of the England team should have to look up the England team article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply cannot see what magical notability standard you want satisfying for what is essentially a basic information list, the likes of which exist all over the pedia. And anyway, the actual concept of "notability" as applied to article topocs does not even exist for lists (search WP:LIST for the word notability, look at the heading under which the notability guideline appears on the list of guidelines). A list merely has to be a sensible collation of notable facts, and satisfy WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The collation of national team nicknames doesn't have to be a topic discussed in the wider world in multiple sources (although actually what do you call the FIFA article if it is not a discussion of the topic of national team nicknames?) The list is hardly a random collection of unrelated information or statistics, or original research, or trivia, or synthesis, or a copyvio, or anything else that resembles (or is supposed to) the actual list of reasons why we take the serious step of destroying an article (for easy reference they can be found here). Deleting this solely on the grounds of "notability" as it applies to articles is just misguided and counter productive puritanism if you ask me, it certainly brings no net benefit. Here's hoping the closer of this debate agrees with me, knows the deletion policy and discounts non-policy arguments. And if he doesn't, then at least let's hope we get one with the decency to explain why what I have written above is nonsene. MickMacNee (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unnecessary. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've used it before, that's in part why I created it. Never used by you <> unnecessary to the rest of the world. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I was skeptical about this article, and my first reaction was that it was wishful thinking on the part of a fan. It's important to note that these are not official nicknames.  It's more along the line of popular usage, like calling the New York Giants "Big Blue", or calling the Pittsburgh Pirates "the Bucs" in a newspaper headline.  As noted, the page cites to a verifiable source (fifa.com, which is the website for soccer/football's world organization).  However, more importantly, doing a google search on a few nicknames chosen at random-- Palancas negras, bravehearts, tricolorii, etc. -- demonstrates to me that these are used in the media for the respective countries, and that this can be sourced even further.  I'm willing to look for citations beyond the source that started the article.  Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep seems sourced, manageable, not indiscriminate. Mandsford and MickMac make good arguments.      Dloh  cierekim  00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete since the 'source', while the official governing body's site, clearly know jack-all about nicknames. I can absolutely guarantee that if you were pick a random Scotsman (hint - you might be reading the thoughts of one) and attempt to tell him that Scotland are "the Bravehearts" he would laugh in your face. Unless a means can be found of providing truly verifiable nicknames for these teams - and I doubt one can be - then the only recourse is to have a nickname - IF ANY - documented on the team's own article. That way only REAL nicknames will exist, not the hallucinations of a marketing-obsessed Swiss bureaucrat. MadScot (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At least get your facts straight before forming an opinion, the word Braveheart does not appear anywhere on the FIFA source. The rest of your rationale is also completely wrong, anything you can verify for an article can be verified for a list. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a friend in college who was marketing-obsessed and took hallucinogens, and he became a bureaucrat and moved to Zurich, and you're right, that type of guy can't be trusted. And I'll try not to say, "How 'bout them Bravehearts?" to a Scotch soccer hooligan, since he'll probably laugh in my face and then throw a punch.  My point is that the FIFA.com website by itself isn't much of a source, but that if these nicknames are used in the media, that would easily be verified.  Thus, if it the sports section of the Glasgow Globe has a headline that says "Bravehearts Kick Arse", that's a secondary source.  Mandsford (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Also my bet is here all these people who are arguing to delete this type of no frills list have been involved in an edit war over a paragraph of sentence after sentence leading up to a perverted/not perverted, valid/invalid premise that has been cited. Yet they argue over this type of list that is the hardest type to pervert?--Biscuit2008 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep There is nothing wrong with sourced lists, that have the premise validated (premise validated is the key for anything encyclopedic). And if you look at the structure of all encyclopedic articles they are in effect just lists with a premise validated, in various subjective orders and designs that you can design. To me this particular type of list design is an important no frills encyclopedic wiki article, as important to the wiki tapestry as much as any other encyclopedic list. This is quality free encyclopedic research material that has sources and can bring in newer sources to improve other articles on wiki and elsewhere. To me discriminating against one type of validated list and not others is bizarre, almost like a fad.--82.39.74.59 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC) >>>>>> On Micmacnees advice below, I've signed in with an account--Biscuit2008 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said, but policy dictates that IP addresses cannot participate in deletion discussions. If you register an account you can sign the above comment. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it does not say that in WP:DEL. WP:AFD states that unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add more here. All encyclopedias are designed to be as objective as can be... So why discriminate against this type of no frills encyclopedic list structure that when validated is the hardest list order and structure to pervert? I mean with other list structures, you can get sentence after sentecnce were someone perverts a cite, leading to an edit war. Yet with this list design, there is no sentence after sentecne, merely one or two words in a premise with a cite, one one line and the next and so on, there is not much room for wiggling. If you were to design a course on how to use a wiki thjis type of list would be the second thing you would use to show the about premise validation, then you would go on to more complex stuff.
 * LOLROF. Firstly, Biscuit, you'd lose that bet. Secondly, lists like this always draw good faith editors from good faith editors on both sides, because they ride the border between an indiscriminate collection of information and our goal of being the storehouse of all human knowledge. Thirdly, ad hominems only weaken your argument and encourage those you disagree with to fortify their positions. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  17:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * cierekim, I have not used any ad hominem for any advantage, I've merely attempted to show something in the context that doesn't make sense when you look from outside (am I not allowed to show key naunces? Or show why this looks like a fad?). Yet you are the one who is ridiculing, instead of keeping to the context, note your use of 'LOLROF'. BTW, again, if you look at the outline structure of any wiki article it is a list that has been worked on with cites, all in various order, so why discriminate against another list that is hard to pervert with prior sentences? I just dont understand why someone would try to remove a list that if cited is the hgardest list to pervert. Alist is a list, whether it is a list of paragraphs and sentences in those paragraphs, or a no frills list packed with knowledge.

There is nothing wrong with this particular list, it could be better with more cites, it has knowledge that some would find useful. I just get the impression, that people wrongly think these types of lists are not encyclopedic for some reason--Biscuit2008 (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've having a hard time imagining why anyone would find this list useful. If they wanted to know the nickname of a specific national team, why don't they just look at that specific national team's article? – PeeJay 17:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And why exactly does it have to personally appear usefull to you to not be deleted? The list was viewed 1,621 times in September, (4,522 times in June during the national team season). Are all these people complete idiots? MickMacNee (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, yes. Seriously, though, I'm not denying that someone might find it useful, but I personally don't see it. – PeeJay 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since when number of views is a parameter for notability? — Do U(knome)?  yes...or no
 * PeeJay, Encyclopedias do not work on subjective outlook, for example I don't find 95% of the 2.5million+ articles on wiki interesting, but others do--Biscuit2008 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep List is useful as reverse lookup. It is not principally a matter of looking up the  to find the nickname of a team, it is more often the other way round - who are "The Mambas"? I read many football articles that refer to "Elephants" "Lions" "Bafana Bafana" "The Flames" "Seleçao" and whilst knowing some of them, many I don't without thinking about it. Not only FIFA use the names, Aussie press uses "Socceroos", NZ Press "All Whites", BBC often refers to "The Mambas", "Les Blues" "Seleçao" "Indomitable Lions" etc. It is at least partially sourced, and to those that want it deleted on the basis that it is not fully accurate or not fully sourced I can only say this Be Bold and fix it. Notability? as notable as the articles it cross-references I believe.-- Club Oranje Talk 23:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A perfectly valid way of organising information. Those above who can't see the use of this would appear to be severely lacking in imagination. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:42, 1 November 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.