Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople by nickname (second 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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was originally speedy deleted under Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. A consensus on Deletion Review nearly unanimously found this deletion in error. Given the delicacy of BLP issues, this article will be relisted at AfD and protected blank for the duration of that discussion. Deletion is on the table, as are other suggestions to alter the presentation of the content. Xoloz 15:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Trivial intersection of athlete + nickname. Listing some of the greatest names in sports with some one-off bench warmers on the basis of a nickname is useless. 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If the deletion before was in error, that indicates either that the consensus was to keep, or that there was no consensus and it defaulted to keep. You know me, I respect the wishes of the people.  Mandsford 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it was speedily deleted for BLP violations, the DRV has nothing to do with consensus or a lack thereof but rather that the speedy was improper. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Or it wasn't something that should have been speedily deleted, but put up for standard AfD. That's what i gathered from the deletion review, anyhow. DurinsBane87 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my vote in the original AfD. Citing WP:OR as a rationale for deleting this is sheerly a smokescreen by the original nominator, since whether or not these nicknames have been applied to the people is a matter for simple verification by means of published sources; original research has no part in it. And WP:V requires that an article's facts need be verifiable for the article to be kept, not that they all be currently sourced. I'm also having a hard time seeing where the WP:BLP concerns are coming from: If there's anything in the article that's egregiously disparaging of living persons, I'm not seeing it. Deor 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia isn't a collection of information. Just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should have an article. DurinsBane87 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my arguments in the DRV. Wikipedia IS a collection of information, Durinsbane... the idea that it isn't is silly and I can't believe anyone would actually say that. Only specific things are excluded as being an indiscriminate collection, please read the section in WP:NOT on what those items actually are. Anyway, blanking this article was a bad idea... an AFD is the best time for an article to get improved with stuff like sourcing. The DRV showed consensus that this is not a BLP issue. --W.marsh 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed a word. That was what i was reffeing to, however. I don't see why it's needed to have a seperate list of athlete's by nickname. The nicknames are on their articles, this is silly and not encyclopedic.DurinsBane87 03:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just an opinion not actually backed up by any policy. Nicknames are a significant part of sports culture, so it's not a trivial intersection. It might not be the most fascinating list ever, but there's still no reason to delete it other than just not liking it. --W.marsh 03:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and restore The idea that people are going to sue over a listing of nick-names sounds like a satire on American litigation madness. Mowsbury 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Blanking this page during this discussion smacks of an air of lofty self importance which is beyond parody. This is a list of nick names.  Get over yourselves because with this attitude Wikipedia will become even more of a laughing stock than it is already. Nick mallory 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Xoloz was kind enough to leave me a note explaining his rationale for this. I don't agree with the policy, but accept his action is fair enough in this instance and I withdraw any accusation of self importance on his part. Nick mallory 04:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:TRIVIA listcruft. VanTucky  (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoid trivia sections mentions nothing about deleting any articles. --W.marsh 02:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying this topic is one big trivia section. VanTucky  (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The page you linked to was not meant to cover deletion of entire articles. At any rate, something the page actually says is 'A selectively-populated list with a narrow theme is not trivia, and can be the best way to present some information' --W.marsh 04:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete List of trivia and none of these names are cited to anywhere, arousing my WP:BLP concerns Corpx 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They could all be cited, though... if the article wasn't protected... this is a catch-22. Also 40 of them are cited... this has been explained to you. --W.marsh 04:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Article has been in existence for over years though and it is in this condition.  Even then I still think it is a list of loosely associated topics, as every athlete seems to have a nickname these days Corpx 05:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We simply don't delete articles as punishments for not being great yet despite having been around for a while... otherwise the majority of our articles on non-English-speaking places and people would probably get axed. As for every athlete having a nickname, that implies that there's a level of interest, if all of these things are getting written about in the press. It may not be interesting to you but it's interesting to some people. It's also something that could be addressed by tweaking the article rather than deleting it. --W.marsh 05:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I love sports and I definitely think this is interesting, but that should not be a reason to keep the article.  This is not really punishment for anything.   I just think this is a bunch of unsourced trivial details Corpx 05:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It could all be sourced though... there's nothing in policy that says everything in an article needs an inline citation this minute or the whole thing must be deleted. Only specific dubious items need citations to avoid removal. --W.marsh 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep adressing the issue of sourcing, but you seem to be ignoring or not noticing the other point being made. This whole list is a trivia section. DurinsBane87 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be dense, but I fail to see how this article falls under the description of trivia in WP:TRIVIA or related guidelines and essays. Could you be more specific with regard to the supposed triviality of the article contents? Deor 01:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, am going to quote mandsford from the original AfD: Athletes tend to be known by nicknames more than most other prominent people, simply because sports reporters create them. This list takes the approach of running from Ace to Zeko; it's a plus that it's not limited to Americans. Mathmo Talk 01:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and restore The "trivia" argument if from people who don't have any interest in sports. What about people who've heard of "Refridgerator" or "The King", but have no idea who they are? I thought encyclopedias included things like that... (Of course, I also had nominated a list of military figures by nickname, which I started, nominated for the same ignorant reason..., so what do I know...?) Trekphiler 22:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (BTW, when, if, the list is restored, add tennis star Maureen "Little Mo" Connolly, Bronco Jake "the Snake" Plummer {I always thought that was Don Prudhomme...}, & boxer Carl "Bobo" Olson.)
 * Keep, purge, and restart The list doesn't have any serious criteria for inclusion. It is even less sourced than I thought during the DRV, as almost 90% of the sourcing is to other Wikipedia articles, leaving about 4 legitimate sources in this list itself.  I randomly sampled 5 (a very small sample) of the names here - in 1 case the nickname wasn't mentioned in our article, in the other 4 it wasn't sourced in our article.  So a massive purge is needed, and it would probably be easiset to purge by removing everything.  Before starting to rebuild, criteria for inclusion are needed.  I'd suggest that we want only lasting nicknames, not ones used only in/by a single source/author.  How to articulate this in a sourcing requirement will be tricky, but perhaps using only biographical or retrospective sources following retirement would be a good first step.  GRBerry 20:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Athletes tend to be known by nicknames more than most other prominent people with possible non exception of politicians. Hey! there is an idea! Triple3D 00:22, 15 August 2007 (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.