Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:05, 7 September 2010.

Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year

 * Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Life  talk  19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have based this list on similar Featured Lists such as Ipswich Town F.C. Player of the Year and Watford F.C. Player of the Season, and I believe it now meets the criteria. Thanks. Argyle 4 Life talk  19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  Comment Support I supported last time and probably will again if there have been improvements. I do want to check a few things just to make sure everything is feature quality before making a !vote.
 * To start with
 * Dablinks is good.
 * http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Plymouth_Argyle_F.C._Player_of_the_Year Checklinks] shows to suspicious as probable 404s but they check out. One did not work earlier even though it does now so the site might be having issues.
 * Alt viewer shows it is taken care of. I am under the impression that this was dropped from the criteria but just to make it better: Try adding something baout the first guy's hair or something to clarify that it is dated. Try adding a mention to Wotton like "with his arms raised triumphantly".Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Any dashes are OK with the MoS.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added some more alternative text to the lead image and Wotton's as suggested. Argyle 4 Life  talk  12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I am happy to support this. It appears to be a perfectly fine list. I do not believe it needs to be mad into an article or merged but that is still a possibility if people feel strongly about it. As of right now, it meets (if not exceeds) the requirements. The lead is great and the list is thoroughly detailed. The first FL nom had some concerns with sources. These have been addressed. It does not over rely on primary sources. I was initially wary of Statto but the "about us" page convinced me otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Commment Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 20:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This list is essentially a content fork of "List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players", being a reduced duplicate of the information there. While the AfD of York was a keep, many of the keep-arguments concerned the lists FL status being a sufficient guarantee against 3.b, however this is not the case here, so it would take novel arguments as to why this content fork is acceptable. I defer my oppose until a case has been made.
 * "Plymouth Argyle Hall of Fame" delink Plymouth Argyle.


 * There is some crossover between the two but I don't believe that is a reason to fail/delete. The main "List of players" inclusion criteria is 100 appearances but I wanted to include POTY winners/Hall of Famers because they are undeniably notable. The award is only mentioned briefly so if a reader wondered how a winner is picked and this list didn't exist then they would be stuck. Merely adding it on to the bottom of the list is a non-starter for me because the "List of players" is long enough already and both will continue to grow as time progresses. WP:CF backs up my belief in the lead. Delinked name in Table key. Argyle 4 Life  talk  12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguable that makes the case for removing the list and converting this into an article proper. A simple wikilink from the main list would then be sufficient. I simply fail to see what constitute a breach of 3.b if this does not, i.e. if a different lead is sufficient. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 00:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I'm going to review this, due to a close association with this strand of lists. What I will say is that if an AfD survived solely on the grounds that WP:FOOTY editors didn't want to see an FL deleted, that would not be a valid close. If you believe that has happened, you should seek to clarify the decision at deletion review. --WFC-- 04:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments –
 * In the By player table, players are sorting by first name, not last.
 * Fixed. Not sure why that table wasn't using .  Argyle 4 Life  talk  10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note E: "and the players article as appropriate thereafter." Wait a second. "players" needs an apostrophe in it, but that's not my real concern here. Does this mean that we're using Wikipedia articles as sources for this page? If so, I see no way that they can pass muster as reliable sources.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should've taken that out a while ago because it isn't true. Each international player has a reference in the caps column. Argyle 4 Life  talk  10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – In my mind at least, an actual award article is valid, and this one meets all the standards.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 21:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I'm reluctant to do this, but I sincerely believe this list can be incorporated into another, and thus it does not meet the criteria set forth in WP:FL?. I'm sorry it wasn't promoted last year, because then it would most likely have been a FL like the rest of them as the way to FL and back is asymmetrical. Sandman888 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Satisfied that it passes 3b. The aforementioned AfD was closed as a clear keep, and the DRV was withdrawn by the nominator. Consensus clearly seems to be in favour of these lists. --WFC-- 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dabomb kindly asked me to address 3b. Thanks for that... Some thoughts:
 * Don't think the York City keep at AfD is all that relevant: the prevailing argument did seem to be appealing to the current FL criteria, when the criteria in force when that list was promoted didn't include any content fork-related requirement;
 * This article deals with the Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year award, an award which has been running for approaching fifty years. It has independent third-party notability in the various newspapers of the West Country, as can be seen on the internet nowadays, and there's no reason to doubt that similar coverage existed over the lifetime of the award. Therefore, it's a perfectly acceptable notable free-standing topic to spin out either from the main club article or from a list of players, because it can't be covered in the same detail in a more general article without giving it undue weight.
 * However, once this article has been spun out, I don't think there's any need to include those winners in the main players list who were there only as PotY winners. With only one list, it's currently acceptable to include clearly-defined extras. Once those extras are spun out into their own list which goes into extra detail about the award itself, I don't see any reason for those who don't qualify for the main list on appearances or as Hall of Fame members to be in it.

Support this list, assuming something suitable gets done about Larrieu's caption and/or reference, and the unused playing position key. If the RfC on 3b, and the other RfC on notability of lists, come to any conclusion, then this list and any others affected can be dealt with as appropriate. But as it stands, I'd have supported this list two weeks ago, before this matter was raised, and the criteria haven't changed in that two weeks. So I'll support it now. yours inconsistently, Struway2 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * However (too much however) I will
 * Thanks for the extra feedback. I see you noticed my edit! I've changed Larrieu's caption because I couldn't find anywhere reliable that states he is our longest serving foreign player. The only players above him here come from the British Isles, but using Wikipedia for referencing purposes is generally frowned upon of course. Argyle 4 Life  talk  19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Quite honestly, I've never seen the argument that these lists fail 3b as having any merit. The award is notable in itself, making this fine as a stand-alone list. Courcelles 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.