Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of retired professional American football quarterbacks


 * 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. Wizardman 03:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

List of retired professional American football quarterbacks

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory. We have categories for things like this. Corvus cornix talk  04:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve Do it right, give some information about team(s) and dates, and it will be more than a category.DGG (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way?  Corvus cornix  talk  04:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out List of Chicago Blackhawks players. This article could be cleaned up to look like that. Much better for quick research than a category. Zagalejo^^^ 05:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All American football quarterbacks will eventually qualify for this list so it's not needed, especially as there's a Category:American football quarterbacks which does everyhing that this list does, but better. A List of American football quarterbacks like the one DGG identifies might be a good idea, but this isn't it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nick Dowling. It's not like retirement is a notable status that is granted on a select number of number of QBs; inevitably all quarterbacks will retire (yes, including Brett Favre ;) and this list will end up being too large to be managable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is the classic "indiscrminate list" -- one that provides nothing but a bunch of blue-links and no information to discriminate between one item on the list and the next. Even if there was information, what's the point?  Do we need a list of NFL quarterbacks who are between the categories of "active" and "deceased"?  Mandsford (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This is needed because the red linked players do not have articles and instead of having the List of retired professional American football players this would make it shorter. --Phbasketball6 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There is no need to delete this article, for one thing why after a year and a half of existance would it be deleted now? Secondly it is great way to see most of the quarterbacks who have played in the NFL, no way should this be deleted.--Yankees10 16:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete– every player retires at one point in his career. This list can potentially grow infinite.  It will become difficult to maintain.  Ksy92003  (talk)  19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't seriously think this will ever be too large to maintain. As long as we limit ourselves to players from the top leagues, it could be done, with some patience. All the information is easily available in books and websites. (Although I am starting to agree that there's little value in having separate lists for active and retired QBs. A List of American football quarterbacks would probably be good enough.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you condense active and retired players into one single list, then that's just a potentially infinite list even more so. Ksy92003  (talk)  19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Many lists are "potentially infinite". The List of Presidents of the United States will grow as long as the US remains a country. But it really wouldn't be that difficult to compile a complete list of every person who's played to this point. It wouldn't take much skill at all; just patience. Zagalejo^^^ 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a lot less than "infinite" and a lot more than "42" (the number of Presidents of the United States). There are literally thousands of retired NFL players, and the name of the list indicates that it's not confined to NFL quarterbacks.  To me it, it looks like the list is a mere shadow of [Category:American football quarterbacks] which has 1,000+ names, compared to perhaps 200 on this particular list.  I suppose one could copy all the names on to this list, but what would be the point?  Mandsford (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between people who played quarterback in high school and professional quarterbacks. This list has more names of professional quarterbacks than the category, because the category does not have the names of the former quarterbacks who do not have articles. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the category have names of people who played quarterback in either just high school or high school and college but never played professionally. --Phbasketball6 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In scanning over those names, you'll have to concede that the vast majority of them have played pro ball. Mandsford (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and list the rest of these retired position players on AFD as well. The list is fairly unmaintable, (not as much as List of retired professional American football players, which should be in AFD, but still), and serves better as a category, if at all. As for the redlinks comment, we have, or should have a list of all the players who played on a certain team, and that can be settled there, not in a list of retired xxx. Secret account 15:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How would it serve better at a category?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I said "if at all", I don't see the use of either a category or a list of this, all players retire at some point, too vauge of a list for a navigation aid. Secretalt (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLS - if a category of this topic isn't listcruft, then the topic isn't listcruft here either. Having a category for something is not a valid argument for deleting a list.  Also keep in mind that lists have the potential for being enhanced with features that categories don't have.  A rudimentary list is a necessary starting point for enhanced lists to be built from.  If you delete them, you waste the resource, and you disrupt the possibility for collaboration on the topic by listbuilders.  By the way, I'm a listbuilder. I hardly ever work on categories.  I've built and developed hundreds of lists, the vast majority of which duplicate categories.  By pushing categories over lists, you are basically telling me and others like me that our list work is worthless.  But there are very good reasons why we construct lists.  Lists are much easier to work with than categories - I can build a list in a fraction of the time it takes to build a similar category.  The data in lists can be utilized and differentiated much easier than the data in categories (cutting and pasting links from categories is problematic, because you can't access the wikitext directly and because categories are only displayed 200 links at a time).  Lists are faster and easier to navigate and browse, because more items can be displayed in single list, and because lists can be scrolled through while categories cannot.  Being articles, lists are part of the encyclopedia itself, and their contents are searchable (by Wikipedia's search box, Google, etc.) - this is a major advantage over categories and a real boost to navigation (it makes searching and browsing synergistic) and makes it easier for readers to explore the encyclopedia.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody here means to say that your work is "worthless" or a waste of time. Of course, we greatly appreciate all contributions and the time and effort everybody makes into improving Wikipedia.  But putting the "we have categories for this" argument aside, I'm not sure that the theme of the list is truly significant, anyway.  I mean every single quarterback retires at some point of his career (as somebody said earlier, yes, even Brett Favre must hang it up eventually) so there really isn't anything "special" about the list that differentiates it from List of active professional American football quarterbacks because they'll just have to transfer from list to list.  Seems pretty pointless to me.  I think it could be considered as indiscriminate information.  Ksy92003  (talk)  21:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note I don't agree with a category nither. Secretalt (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ksy, notability is permanent (Wikipedia covers notable things from throughout all of history). WP:LISTS specifies that navigation is one of the main purposes of lists, and this list helps navigate articles on football players.  The various lists are divided by topic rather intelligently.  A comprehensive list of (notable) football players past and present would be rather large, and so it's natural to split it up into separate lists.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the players in the list are notable and will always be notable per the WP:NFL notability guidelines. But just because a select group of players are notable doesn't mean that a list of those players is truly significant.  For example, Gary DiSarcina and Orlando Cabrera are both shortstops that played with the California Angels/Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (I use a baseball scenario because I know much more about baseball than football) and are notable per the WP:MLB notability guidelines (whatever they are; I just know they are).  But that doesn't mean that it's necessary to have a (pardon my WP:BEANS violations) List of retired Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim shortstops (for DiSarcina; yes, "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" in that title was intentional) or List of former Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim shortstops (for Cabrera).  In this case, I feel that the players in the list are notable, but the way in which they are organized is considered an indiscriminate collection of information.  Ksy92003  (talk)  06:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: It is a redundant subset of Category:American_football_quarterbacks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Infoboxify Why not add a line to the infobox; Year of retirement? This would allow interested editors to put the information where it most matters; on the players' pages. Otherwise Delete. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is absolutely ridiculous. This is akin to creating an article such as List of National Football League players who have died. Every player who played the position of quarterback will eventually retire; therefore, this article is completely useless and redundant with Category:American football quarterbacks. Skudrafan1 (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Retired status is not an interesting attribute of these players.  (In fact retirement status is not an intersting attribute of most professions.) Just as there would be no point in listing them separately for living or dead, this serves no purpose.  The list is also poor constructed, completely lacking in useful annotation (birth/death dates, career dates, teams played for) making it no better (and in fact worse) than a category. It's surprising that a list of retired anything wouldn't give the years the careers started and ended.  Quale (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Retired players could be added to a category. This makes as little sense as "List of dead American football players." Edison (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Quale. This is not an interesting attribute, and it just isn't a good list to begin with. The example for politicians is that there is a general category, and current office-holders are broken out into subcats. That's the way this should work. --Dhartung | Talk 11:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per at least the last 4 delete !votes. - fchd (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Would eventually include everyone who ever played the position of quarterback, as every quarterback retires if he doesn't die first.  Mattisse  14:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the main merit of articles such as this is identify articles that ought to be written (by red links). There are several in this list.  If they are notable enough to warrnat having articles, the keep it; if not delete it.  A list of American Presidents (without more) would not have that use, since all have articles, but it could give their dates in office and of death, thus providing an answer to the question of who was president in (say) 1854.  No vote I do not even know what the sport's rules are.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issue about the article has to do necessarily with the way that it's formatted. I think the primary issue is whether or not the specific collection of players (retired quarterbacks) is indiscriminate information.   Ksy92003  ( talk ) 00:56, 24 February 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.