Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports lists


 * 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, on the strength of arguments. I will rename the article, but that's me acting on my own, not a result of the debate. A category may be a good idea, but "categorize" is a bit much to ask in a debate. If someone thinks a category would be worthwhile, make one, and then you can try to argue that this list duplicates the category. Mango juice talk 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sports lists

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. It's a list of lists. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Convert to category -- the phrase "Sports lists" is highly generic and likely to be typed into the search-box by a lot of readers. I haven't even looked at the article -- it could be total garbage -- but something should be done with these two words. (In fact, "sport lists" and "sports list" should all merge together.)---Mike18xx 01:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most of these "lists" don't even have separate entries in Wikipedia. Too many redlinks for my taste.--Ispy1981 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - red linkfarm. Otto4711 22:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Adds valuable information for those looking for information on sports lists players are placed on-- --Josh 01:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, a red-link farm is, in this case, not useful; furthermore, the blue-link lists do not even point to lists, but to articles. --Iamunknown 03:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's a useful article that just needs a better title, such as "Lists in sports". Every sports league has a "list" or lists. I think it's useful. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... WP:USEFUL isn't really valid you know. Kwsn (Ni!) 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And you are quoting an essay not a guideline. An essay that makes it clear that "useful" can be valid in some circumstances. In this case, it's a widely used term that has many applications in the sports world. I just think it has a poor, misleading title. Doesn't necessarily mean that the information should be nuked. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - "List of lists" is a misnomer. It is a list of different classifications for players in various sports.  The fact that the sports all classify the players as on the xyz list does not make this article a list of lists, in the way that the term is normally bandied about here at AFD.  The designations implicit in each of these lists is verifiable, and not original research.  Is it good to lump all the sport lists together like this?  Probably not.  Is it a deletable offense?  I doubt it.  A better way to write the article would be to mention how each league maintains different classifications/lists of players for teams, and (possibly split into new article) go on to explain those lists.  Expanding to cover similar lists in non-US leagues would be good as well.  Neier 09:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally, this could do better as a category, but that's just me. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Neier. This article badly needs a lead and maybe a rename to explain what it is about: Official player designations in team sports where there are often different rules regarding players with different designations. This topic is probably notable. I don't know the most common name for it. The "lists" in the title has nothing to do with Lists. Some of the redlinks should probably be changed to unlinked bold text. PrimeHunter 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have added a short lead . PrimeHunter 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the point that this is not a list of lists in the Wikipedia sense (which would be an article listing articles which are lists), it is simply an article which is a list. No clear policy-based case for deletion has been made, and although not much has been put into this article, I think it is a valid stub and should be kept. I would say the ideal progression of this article would be to have fully developed sections for each sport, of a paragraph or so per sports list. From there it can be split into a separate article per sport, and if and when a specific sports list entry grows considerably, it can be replaced with a summary and have the typical canned "main article" link to the full article. I concede that red links should be removed from this list except where good judgment suggests that there are enough sources available to develop more than a stub article.  Big Nate 37 (T) 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: it should be noted that the main contributor to this article, Josh (SportsMasterESPN), has asked the following users to contribute to this AfD discussion: Vikreykja, Ebryns427 , Phoenixrod , Woohookitty , BigNate37 (me) , Kelly_Martin , Kfrogers , Burntsauce , Sebastiankessel . This could be construed to be canvassing... I'm a little rusty on policy, so could someone please see if there's anything to this?  Big Nate 37 (T) 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you could read Canvassing, where it says that limited posting with neutral tone to a non-partisan audience is not canvassing and, considering that his or her messages certainly qualify as such, it could not be construed as canvassing. --Iamunknown 23:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Err... dunno. I'll admit, they are neutral thankfully.  But it's borderline as to being "limited" from my point of view.  Kwsn (Ni!) 23:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * add-on er... looking at the people, it is actually. Kfrogers hasn't edited in all of 2007, sebastian since the end of may.   Kwsn (Ni!) 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Canvassing says an arbitrator wrote "... Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." None of the 9 people have edited it and they were all asked to comment. The identical messages said "I was hoping you would take part in this, and voice your opinion on this issue". PrimeHunter 01:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Incidentally, was that "I was hoping ... you would voice your opinion on the issue" a call to arms for deletions or for inclusionists?  No.  Please, spare us the grief.  It wasn't canvassing.  --Iamunknown 06:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll admit, it's sort of borderline. I do think that should be cleared up though, what's an "acceptable" number of people to ask for their opinion. (please, no more comments after this, I'm moving this particular discussion to the WP:CANVAS talk page)  Kwsn (Ni!) 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They have not edited the article because it was up for deletion right when I created it. They did edit articles about the Disabled-list and ect. which is included in the article.--Josh 02:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. In that case, I think the solicitation was warranted, and I hope my raising the concern didn't distract the debate from its main subject.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Turn to Category - I don't think we should lose valuable info, but maybe a category is a better way of grouping those articles. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. At the moment, there are only a few of those that actually exist. Once more are created, categorify. --Rory096 16:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think this was intended to be a list of articles, and I don't think it should be. It is the start of an article by itself and only has "lists" in the name because it is about real-world lists. The creator chose a list-like structure and made too many redlinks so it looks like a Wikipedia article list. Some of the mentioned real-world lists (and the connection betweem them) seem worth mentioning in this article but not suitable for their own article, so categorization could not collect this information. PrimeHunter 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an indiscriminate list of information. ( [ →] zel  zany  - fish) 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: While this article's subject(s)' notability may be questionable, I don't think any of the criteria at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information match the article being discussed here. The statment that it is an "indiscriminante collection of information" is false because there is a discriminating quality for inclusion in this article. Even if the quoted statement were true, it is too generic to qualify under this policy's specific list of consensus-based descriptions of what an article should not be.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:16, 17 June 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.