Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable Blackpool F.C. players


 * 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   merge to List of Blackpool F.C. players. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

List of notable Blackpool F.C. players

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability is assumed in all Wikipedia articles and arbitrarily assigning it to some players is WP:OR. There is already List of Blackpool F.C. players, so this is furthermore redundant. PROD was denied with "Rmv prod - such lists exist for many clubs, has refs" but I don't see any other "Lists of notable X" at Special:Allpages/List_of_notable nor in Category:Lists of association football players by club. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree that we don't need two lists here, but the formatting here is good, and would certainly improve List of Blackpool F.C. players if added there - it's a good example of how lists can be improved to go beyond duplicating categories by adding content beyond a simple list of article links. --Michig (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - this topic is notable and the nominator has not provided a valid rationale. I would suggest a rename & re-jig, to match something like the featured list List of Gillingham F.C. players (which, by the way, has spin-off articles at List of Gillingham F.C. players (25–49 appearances) and List of Gillingham F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances). For the Blackpool player lists, I would suggest that this article becomes List of Blackpool F.C. players and a new article at List of Blackpool F.C. players (fewer than 50 appearances) is created. GiantSnowman 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would need some well-defined criteria for inclusion, otherwise it's just one person's opinion of who is 'most' notable. There are players currently listed here who made only a small number of appearances for the club.--Michig (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well take, for example, my team's equivalent list, which gives inclusion criteria of "former players who have made 50 or more appearances in the Football League"; there is a run-off article which gives inclusion criteria of "players who have made fewer than 50 appearances." The actual figure for Blackpool can be discussed, but that is a good start. GiantSnowman 19:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me.--Michig (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If this article became List of Blackpool F.C. players, what would happen to the article that already exists under that title......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to a new title, as per the Bradford or Gillingham examples already discussed on here. GiantSnowman 20:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename as List of Blackpool F.C. players with 100+ appearances], and remove those with less than 100. Title is POV, criteria are POV (in terms of making them notable, not in terms of meeting criteria). Why do Eardley's international appearances make him more notable as a Blackpool player? If someone eligible for a minor Caribbean team played for Blackpool reserves, but got a brief run out as a sub once, this would make him a notable Blackpool player according to this. Rimmel Daniel is not a notable Gillingham player (never got anywhere near the first team squad), but he did did represent Grenada while on their books. Is a player who played was mainly in the reserves, but stayed around because he was cheap, really notable, even if his occasional appearances reach 100? Is a player with 100 appearances more notable than one with 99? Kevin McE (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

*Keep there are many articles like this covering only notable players. Not every single player ever to have played. Until today I didnt realise the full list was prefered. A wider discussion is required. Edinburgh  Wanderer  11:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge List of Blackpool F.C. players into this, and then rename to List of Blackpool F.C. players. The other article has the correct title, this has the correct content. —WFC— 06:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Change to Merge following clarifiction by struaway on project page. Edinburgh   Wanderer  11:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/ Rename/ Merge into "List of Blackpool F.C. players". But the content should not be deleted. I'm currently working on "List of Sheffield United F.C. players" and we're only including players with at least 100 appearances. There shouldn't be a need for an article to list ever single player as it is covered by "Category:Sheffield United F.C. players". The same should apply to Blackpool and arguably all clubs make it the norm. So this article should be renamed "List of Blackpool F.C. players" and a list of all Blackpool players will be covered by "Category:Blackpool F.C. players". IJA (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having a List of X F.C. players for over 100 appearances (or whatever figure is suitable for that team) and a second List of X F.C. players with under 100 appearances for everyone else is a good method IMO. GiantSnowman 15:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/Rename to List of Blackpool F.C. players, per WFC. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, the arbitrary nature of the article is an issue, but then articles of +/- 100 appearances are in existence and, indeed, recommended as an alternative? Merge/redirect into List of Blackpool F.C. players. Note that the category only contains created articles; whereas the list contains "all" players, pulled from several sources, which is useful for cross-referencing. -  Dudesleeper  talk  23:55, 26 January 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.