Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nottingham Forest F.C. players

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. There is clear consensus to create lists with inclusion criteria of 100 appearances or more. This is distinct from "notable", which can be addressed at the article talk page. I42 (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nottingham Forest F.C. players[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article only includes players who are 'notable'. However, what constitutes notable (or not notable) is entirely original research. Therefore the list fails to meet inclusion guidelines. I42 (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Keep all These articles form part of the Category:Lists of footballers by club. The Notts Forest article states that it includes players with more than 100 appearances for the club. I checked the first English club in the cat, List of Arsenal F.C. players, which has the same inclussion criteria, and is also a featured list. Lugnuts (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Interestingly, the article you cite makes no claim that 100 appearances equates to some form of notability, and furthermore there are no players with less than 100 appearances in the list. It is merely a list of players with 100 or more appearances. If these lists conformed to the same criteria my objection to the WP:OR would no longer apply. I42 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Lugnuts. Additionally since almost every entry in these lists have their own WP article, their own individual notability is not in question. These lists have clear inclusion criteria, thus they are not indiscriminate. As for WP:OR concerns, I pose this question to the nominator: What unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas or unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serve to advance a position is the creator of this list guilty of??--Mike Cline (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- (1) The assertion that at least 100 appearances is somehow notable, and more particularly the implication that follows that less than this is not; (2) inclusion of other players with less than 100 appearences which have arbitrarily been deemed notable after all. I42 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list's lead-in does not assert as you suggest that 100 appearances (vice 101 or some other number)is notable. It merely establishes a reasonable inclusion criteria that is easily verifiable. The subject of the list--Nottingham Forest F.C. is notable and the content of the list is limited to notable players with at least 100 appearances. There is no OR here. 100 appearances is a reasonable inclusion criteria. If there are entries for players with less than 100 appearances, they should be removed from the list. Or if there is a more reasonable inclusion criteria, the article should be modified to reflect that. There is nothing in Wikipedia:List#Lead_sections_in_stand-alone_lists or Wikipedia:List#Listed_items that requires inclusion criteria to establish notability. Inclusion criteria in Lists must be discriminate to comply with WP:IINFO but need not establish notability of the subject in and of itself.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It most certainly does make that assertion: "This is a list of notable footballers who have played for Nottingham Forest. Generally, this means players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club. A number of other players who have played an important role for the club have also been included". However, it is moot: there is clear consensus to create lists of players with 100 appearances or more so I will withdraw the nomination. For these articles, we should certainly still address (a) the assertion that 100 appearances is somehow notable, and (b) the inclusion of players with less than this number. I42 (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Lugnuts.--Karljoos (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per the above two comments. Even if the articles do set an arbitrary number of appearances for inclusion that is neither "OR" nor does it give grounds for deletion. This question has been debated several times before and the consensus is that either 50 or 100 is a sensible cut-off point. An all-inclusive list for any of these three clubs would stretch to over 1000 names. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all. The 100-appearance cutoff point is arbitrary, but it restricts the list to manageable proportions. There's no original research involved in setting such a criterion for inclusion. By WP:ATHLETE, all footballers having made a Football League appearance for these clubs are notable. A couple of years ago, we introduced all such lists in a similar manner, and included "extra" players, club record-holders and the like: see the originally-featured version of List of Arsenal F.C. players, which had pretty much identical wording to this list. We do things differently these days, but that's something that could and should be sorted out with a quick word on the article talk page, not by deleting the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.