Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of San Jose Earthquakes rosters (2nd 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 redirect to List of San Jose Earthquakes players. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Jose Earthquakes rosters[edit]

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

This appears to violate WP:LISTCRUFT. I don't understand why this was kept in the first place. – Michael (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - information is surpassed by List of San Jose Earthquakes players which is a notable topic. This is not. Giant Snowman 08:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GiantSnowman Spiderone 20:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Superseded by List of San Jose Earthquakes players, so it should point there. If anyone really needs to see each season's roster, they would likely already be looking at the season article. Not opposed to outright deletion. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jkudlick's logic. Would be more useful as a redirect than a deletion in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jkudlick, the "list of..." page is the preferred format. Fenix down (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2017 (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.