470:, where reviewers had the opportunity to object on the content fork front. The lead, season of the win, by position and by nationality detail would be out of place in the main club article or the list of players. Several players have made fewer than 100 appearances; while the list became featured with the caveat that "other notable players are also included", I don't think such a critereon would stand up in 2010. See the (complete) lead to the incomplete
31:
690:
I know that's true but it has not been brought up in neither the FL nor the FT nomination. I could better respect the arguments if they addressed the 3.b "not a content fork" directly instead of saying "it passed FL so I don't need to think about it". What would have happened if a non-FL list was
345:
I assume
Sandman has put this up for AfD as he disagrees with the notion of "Player of the Year" type lists (please correct me if wrong)? I understand that (but don't agree with it), but surely some sort of consensus should have been gathered at WP:FOOTY before going ahead and nominating this and
508:
Fair comment on the
Barcelona list (albeit I don't think that was a good call, as demonstrated by how it's done with Watford). And you're right, no article is immune from deletion. I won't do this myself due to a conflict of interest, but I would suggest that if those two discussions are to be
453:
For disclosure I'm an author of a similar list. I've had a think about whether it would be appropriate to expand on my position given my vested interest, but I agree with sandman. The important thing is the strength of the rationale, not the motivation behind it. This list was
383:
I retract my comments regarding caps. Whether this is a content fork or not, is not a privilege reserved for the footy-people. Regarding my thoughts of POY lists, I'll keep those to myself. Remember this is a deletion discussion, not a competition in second-guessing motives.
258:
in the interests of qualitative and productive discussion, I think that all the similar lists should be added to this nomination. Otherwise in all likelihood we will end up with either different decisions or fractured discussion relevant to all of the lists.
530:- This list is a Featured List and is a part of a Featured Topic, so it has obviously been deemed worthy enough to exist on a number of occasions. Btw, if Featured content is to be deleted, isn't it supposed to undergo a featured content review first? –
193:
455:
121:
116:
187:
125:
108:
573:
494:
I had included players with <100 apps, due to them being noteworthy, so such a criterion does pass in 2010. The fact that it has passed FLC and FT doesn't make this list infallible.
471:
467:
148:
153:
547:
346:
possibly all the other lists of this type at AfD? And in regard to your comment about caps being unreferenced, I recommend you take a closer look at the "Notes" column.
232:
inclusion of caps. Who became clubmen could easily be indicated at the list of players. A little note could even indicate what level they where at, if that's important.
112:
40:
208:
104:
96:
175:
616:, there is (or at least was) consensus that the list meets all the Knowledge (XXG) criteria for content inclusion, and I agree with that consensus.
796:
778:
745:
726:
712:
700:
685:
661:
639:
625:
604:
588:
562:
537:
520:
503:
485:
437:
407:
393:
378:
355:
336:
304:
284:
270:
249:
90:
169:
165:
17:
829:
215:
681:
516:
481:
374:
332:
300:
266:
670:. Probably more than any other criteria. That is why it can usually be assumed that featured lists are notable. Ironically, its
612:- I don't see anything wrong with the list. There is some overlap with another list but that is not a reason to delete. As a
225:
78:
491:
181:
811:
65:
46:
705:
This is exactly why we should subject the list to a
Featured List Review before attempting a deletion discussion. –
810:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
293:
AfD rationales are given. Besides, if the admin closes democratically, the decision should be taken to DRV. --
509:
rendered null and void by this one, it might be worth informing the people that reached those conclusions. --
794:
403:
351:
601:
275:
Sure, but I don't know how to mass-nominate. It probably generate some opposition from article 'owners'
86:
322:
696:
692:
678:
513:
499:
495:
478:
433:
429:
389:
385:
371:
329:
297:
280:
276:
263:
245:
241:
237:
233:
709:
652:
645:
534:
201:
787:
741:
722:
399:
347:
786:– Nothing wrong with Player of the Year lists for professional club's as far as I'm concerned.
671:
667:
657:
635:
621:
613:
598:
584:
558:
459:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
771:
82:
675:
510:
475:
368:
326:
294:
260:
463:
318:
474:
for how I believe noteworthy players who have made few appearances should be tackled. --
706:
597:- nothing wrong with "Player of the Year" lists, especially one as impressive as this.
531:
823:
737:
718:
617:
580:
554:
142:
766:
765:
Obviously. Isn't a content fork, and meets the criteria for stand-alone lists.
717:
An FLRC would have been nice, but based on precedent, it is not required.
462:, which has explicit criteria against content forks. It is also part of a
367:. In Sandman's defence he did try, but got no response in four days. --
655:
trying to disvalue a well researched and more than notable list. --
398:
Then exactly why do you believe the POTY lists should be deleted?
729:(comment and indentation tweaked at 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC))
804:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
633:
as
Featured content it would have been carefully scrutinised. --
289:
Nominator keep !votes should be completely ignored unless sound
25:
472:
List of
Watford F.C. players (fewer than 50 appearances)
733:
138:
134:
130:
200:
574:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
214:
666:Featured lists frequently get failed on critereon
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
814:). No further edits should be made to this page.
644:These "its-FL-so-keep" does seem close to an
548:list of Football-related deletion discussions
8:
224:The only thing that separate this list from
736:made no mention of content forks. cheers,
568:
542:
105:List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year
97:List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year
572:: This debate has been included in the
546:: This debate has been included in the
321:, a notification has been added to the
45:For an explanation of the process, see
732:Just for information: the FL criteria
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
734:at the time this list was promoted
466:, which means it has been through
323:featured list candidates talk page
24:
674:has no such layer of scrutiny. --
41:deletion review on 2010 August 21
29:
240:) 16:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
672:bigger, more recognised sister
226:List of York City F.C. players
1:
648:.12:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
492:List of FC Barcelona players
797:15:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
779:11:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
746:07:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
727:13:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
713:09:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
701:08:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
691:nominated instead? Delete?
686:23:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
662:19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
640:11:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
626:19:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
605:18:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
589:00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
563:00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
538:22:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
521:19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
504:19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
486:18:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
438:19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
408:16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
394:16:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
379:16:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
356:16:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
337:16:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
305:16:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
285:16:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
271:16:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
250:16:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
228:is the smaller size and an
91:00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
846:
490:On the recently promoted
468:another layer of scrutiny
830:Pages at deletion review
807:Please do not modify it.
61:Please do not modify it.
460:featured list criteria
360:I also disagree with
653:clutching at straws
646:appeal to authority
73:The result was
775:
591:
577:
565:
551:
339:
79:non-admin closure
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
837:
809:
792:
776:
773:
769:
578:
552:
313:
219:
218:
204:
156:
146:
128:
63:
33:
32:
26:
845:
844:
840:
839:
838:
836:
835:
834:
820:
819:
818:
812:deletion review
805:
788:
772:
767:
651:I'd say you're
428:Se nomination.
317:: As this is a
161:
152:
119:
103:
100:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
843:
841:
833:
832:
822:
821:
817:
816:
800:
799:
781:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
664:
628:
607:
592:
566:
540:
525:
524:
523:
488:
464:featured topic
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
340:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
222:
221:
158:
154:AfD statistics
99:
94:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
842:
831:
828:
827:
825:
815:
813:
808:
802:
801:
798:
795:
793:
791:
790:Argyle 4 Life
785:
782:
780:
777:
770:
764:
761:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
730:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
711:
708:
704:
703:
702:
698:
694:
689:
688:
687:
683:
680:
677:
673:
669:
665:
663:
660:
659:
654:
650:
649:
647:
643:
642:
641:
638:
637:
632:
629:
627:
623:
619:
615:
614:Featured List
611:
608:
606:
603:
600:
596:
593:
590:
586:
582:
575:
571:
567:
564:
560:
556:
549:
545:
541:
539:
536:
533:
529:
526:
522:
518:
515:
512:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
487:
483:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
452:
449:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
409:
405:
401:
400:Mattythewhite
397:
396:
395:
391:
387:
382:
381:
380:
376:
373:
370:
366:
363:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
348:Mattythewhite
344:
341:
338:
334:
331:
328:
324:
320:
319:featured list
316:
312:
306:
302:
299:
296:
292:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
272:
268:
265:
262:
257:
254:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:unreferenced
227:
217:
213:
210:
207:
203:
199:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
167:
164:
163:Find sources:
159:
155:
150:
144:
140:
136:
132:
127:
123:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
101:
98:
95:
93:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
806:
803:
789:
783:
762:
656:
634:
630:
609:
594:
569:
543:
527:
458:against the
450:
364:
361:
342:
314:
290:
255:
229:
223:
211:
205:
197:
190:
184:
178:
172:
162:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
365:his opinion
188:free images
83:Ron Ritzman
693:Sandman888
496:Sandman888
430:Sandman888
386:Sandman888
362:the notion
277:Sandman888
242:Sandman888
234:Sandman888
581:• Gene93k
555:• Gene93k
824:Category
738:Struway2
719:Dabomb87
456:reviewed
291:deletion
149:View log
618:Rlendog
602:Snowman
343:Comment
256:Comment
194:WP refs
182:scholar
122:protect
117:history
166:Google
126:delete
658:Jimbo
636:Jimbo
599:Giant
209:JSTOR
170:books
143:views
135:watch
131:links
16:<
784:Keep
763:Keep
742:talk
723:talk
697:talk
668:3(b)
631:Keep
622:talk
610:Keep
595:Keep
585:talk
570:Note
559:talk
544:Note
528:Keep
500:talk
451:Keep
434:talk
404:talk
390:talk
352:talk
325:. --
315:Note
281:talk
246:talk
238:talk
202:FENS
176:news
139:logs
113:talk
109:edit
87:talk
75:keep
774:Dom
768:Big
710:Jay
707:Pee
699:)
684:--
579:--
553:--
535:Jay
532:Pee
519:--
502:)
484:--
436:)
392:)
377:--
335:--
303:--
283:)
269:--
248:)
216:TWL
151:•
147:– (
77:. (
826::
744:)
725:)
624:)
587:)
576:.
561:)
550:.
406:)
354:)
259:--
196:)
141:|
137:|
133:|
129:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
89:)
81:)
43:.
740:(
721:(
695:(
682:C
679:F
676:W
620:(
583:(
557:(
517:C
514:F
511:W
498:(
482:C
479:F
476:W
432:(
402:(
388:(
375:C
372:F
369:W
350:(
333:C
330:F
327:W
301:C
298:F
295:W
279:(
267:C
264:F
261:W
244:(
236:(
220:)
212:·
206:·
198:·
191:·
185:·
179:·
173:·
168:(
160:(
157:)
145:)
107:(
85:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.