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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fenerbahce S.K. foreign players[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Fenerbahce S.K. foreign players

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

Overcategorised list. Players at clubs generally aren't notable solely based on their nationality, especially in modern day football. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for similar reasons. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, classic overcategorisation. List of X players is fine, welcome even - but these articles are a step too far. Giant Snowman 17:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep some~~ – I give up my position. I don't see what notability criteria they fail, as long as there are also Category:Expatriate association football players and Category:Expatriate association football players by nationality for every country. Such lists do classify as encyclopedic content. Plus, some of the clubs do not have List of X players articles, because there is only the category for that. Deleting these lists means losing the possibility to know what foreign players ever played for that club, which in my opinion is a notable information as long as those two categories with their subcategories are. Add that WP:OVERCAT refers to categories and not to articles, but the fact that such nationality categories exist makes these lists even worthier to be kept. BaboneCar (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The categories you mention are nowhere near as specific as the lists I've nominated (you wouldn't expect Category:Manchester United F.C. expatriate footballers to be acceptable for example). We already have lists for foreign players in countries, and even individual leagues, so as GiantSnowman says, extending this to clubs would be a step too far. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed they are near to the lists you've nominated. You might want to know what foreign players have played in a country, what foreign players have played in a specific league, why wouldn't you want to know what foreign players have played for a specific club? The listcruft criteria doesn't mention anything about foreign players of a specific club not being notable. It comes on the same line as the countries and the leagues. After all isn't an encyclopedia about "complete knowledge"? I see that it comes down to only you to decide whether a list of a specific club is more or less notable than one of a country. BaboneCar (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot of them See my bolded statements a little further down. We have comprehensive lists of players (many of which are featured), which list nationals and non-nationals together, along with each player's nationality. There is absolutely no need to list foreigners separately. —WFC— 00:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand your point. Where there are already lists of players, including the foreign players lists in those articles seems logical. But as long as we have all those expatriate categories of and in a country or a league, why shouldn't they be listed separately for a club? In a subsection or a separate article if there's no article for the players of that club? Again, as I've said, an enclyclopedia is about "complete knowledge", where there's notability of the subject of course. What should you do if you wanted to know what foreign players have played for a specific club? Search them by their name resonance in the general category of that club's players? Instead, you can have a list of the foreign players that have played in a country with just one click. BaboneCar (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I share your view on complete knowledge. But if you have a list of players, you can click on the sort button, knowing that the Turkish players will be grouped in one (large) section, and the ones outside of that group are the foreign ones. —WFC— 12:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what's to be done where there's no general list of players of that club? They will lose the possibility to know what were the foreign players that ever played for that club in its history? I think that where such general lists do not exist, the lists of foreign players should be kept. Where general lists of players exist, the lists foreign players should integrated within the general ones. BaboneCar (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is this a hypothetical, or is this actually the case with some of these lists? If so, which ones? —WFC— 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've done some original research and I see that only for Fenerbahce S.K., Real Betis and Persepolis F.C. there are general lists of their players. BaboneCar (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In that case, the three lists you mention should be deleted. The rest of them should be moved to List of (club name) players and tagged as incomplete. —WFC— 12:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unreferenced. Calistemon (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not apply to all. Some of them have the references on the players' articles. If there's no article for a player then reference is needed. BaboneCar (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My vote refers to the Fenerbahce article. I've never heard of it being sufficent to just link to an article rather than providing an reliable external reference. I'm pretty sure, Wikipedia is not classed as a reliable source. In any case, sources are easy to come by. Not providing one is just lazynes on behalf of the author or authors and the article is templated accordingly! This link, for example, could be used as source for some of the players. Calistemon (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but it's not a reason for deletion because it can easily be solved. And it was not the reason for which they were nominated. BaboneCar (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in Wikipedia:Verifiability says pretty clearly why it should be deleted in its current form:"It is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources." Additionally, in its current form it may also violate Wikipedia:No original research. Proper sources can fix both and make it a keeper, in my opinion. Without it, it should go! Calistemon (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and thank god that JMO added that list to his query: what's next: LIST OF LEFT-FOOTED FC BARCELONA FOOTBALLERS IN THE 90'S? :) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus should be reached through pertinent arguments. Just saying you don't like them or being satirical I don't think that counts. As I've said, as long as we have categories and lists of foreign players in a country and/or a league, it is notable to have a list with those at a club. In this case, your example is nowhere near to what these lists are about. BaboneCar (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for trying to cheer things up, but i admit i did not elaborate properly. I'll take GiantSnowman's early sentence then: overcategorization. List of "X club" players - if they pass the needed criteria - should contain players from ALL nationalities, we needn't have one with nationals and another with imports, my two cents. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OCAT might refer to categories and not articles, but the same principle applies here. Lists of players who have "played abroad" from India and Iran have been deleted recently; this is pretty much the same thing in the other direction, and, like them, I honestly fail to see the point. Soccer/football stars cross-pollenate a lot between countries, that's the nature of the beast. Your team has somebody from another country playing on it. In other news, dog bites man. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2011 (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.