Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople by nickname (3rd nomination)


 * 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   Keep.  Syn  ergy 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

List of sportspeople by nickname
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unmaintainable list that seems based mainly on original research and has little verifibility. Could potentially be a list of every athlete that has an article. --Jimbo[online] 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note related Afd by nominator: Articles for deletion/List of football (soccer) players by nickname. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the replies made in the related Afd about sourcing/verifiability/inclusion criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Delete. The nominator is a comlete hypocritical cunt who has zero understanding of the deletion policy. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aw, now why do you gotta do that stuff here? Everybody said keep... except for the nominator, and now you.  Looks like you two guys are on the losing side of this argument.  Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup. I have no problem with the referenced entries, but the unreferenced claims are probably in breach of WP:BLP. IF this article survives, someone needs to take responsibility for sourcing citations, otherwise all the uncited entries must be removed. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but split, the unmaintainable bit as the nominator is in my opinion, the size of this list, even my 5 year old laptop is struggling to cope with it being that big. Breaking this list into several lists for various sports will make it easier for older computers as they won't have to put up with having to download the page for several minutes. Jay Pegg (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep In the main there is a lot of verified information and I get the impression if you went through that list 90% who do not have verification, would get verification.

Completely helpful to researchers, who may be researching an athlete for example.--82.39.72.45 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An article with 298 footnotes is not "original research". Mandsford (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you freaking kidding me Keep. OR? Lacks verifiability? 301 footnotes ring a bell?  Unmaintainable?  Really? On an online encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?  Like every other valid article, edit to remove crap.   This nomination should never have happened. Minkythecat (talk) 08:16, 18 August 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.