Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Offenburger FV 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 delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Offenburger FV players

No need for this page, even as a redirect, as nobody will search for it. The content has been moved to the team's page. Over The Desk (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that it be deleted, unless anyone is willing to take on the task of making it what it claims to be. But it should not have been moved to the club article in this way. It is now a Notable players section, which, when it has no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria, is POV, OR and unverifiable. Indeed, it was removed from the club article for precisely that reason on 15 March. If OTD's intention is to make a merge, then that is what he should have proposed. Kevin McE (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion suggestion deletion, the final consensus may be "merge" but this is not an Articles for Merging discussion, and there is no need to wait for a "Merge" outcome before merging content. Over The Desk (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the removal of this information from the club article was done with clear edit notes which cited several policies and preceding discussions, and the act of merging was essentially an unexplained reversion of that edit. However, User:EA210269 has since given it a heading that provides inclusion/exclusion criteria, and references as to why the two players involved should be on it. So long as the list is complete, or there is the intention to make it so, I now think that delete and merge is entirely appropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so pedantic. I explained why I was putting it in the article. It was not a major change and hardly controversial. If you agree that it was actually the right thing to do, why are you continuing to harp on about tiny details of how it should have been done? Rather than complaining in the first place, perhaps you could have made the changes that EA210269 made instead. Let's focus on getting stuff done rather than moaning about whether it follows the letter of whichever obscure code of conduct you think we should be following. Over The Desk (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs expanding and improving, not deleting. Lists of players ARE notable. Giant Snowman 17:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that it should be kept if there was more content, or recreated when there is more content, but I would suggest that with only two players on the list, that list should be in the main article, until such a time that it is expanded. I don't think it should be created in the expectation that it might be expanded. Over The Desk (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands with no prejudice of recreation if someone writes an actual list. Punkmorten (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I withdraw my earlier 'keep vote'; a quick search for notable players to have played for this club does not bring up many more than the two internationals whose details are already mentioned on the main article page. Therefore, I doubt the club merits having a seperate article about its players. Giant Snowman 16:07, 12 April 2009 (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.