Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of USM Alger 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 17:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of USM Alger players[edit]

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

Non notable list of players in a club. It says in the lead that Generally, this means players that have played 100 or more league matches for the club. However, some players who have played fewer matches are also included; this includes players that have had considerable success either at other clubs or at international level, as well as players who are well remembered by the supporters for particular reasons., and this seems very arbitrary and POV what players are included. The article is also completely unsourced. Qed237 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a list of players who have played for a professional club in a fully-professional league, in the same way as List of Manchester United F.C. players is. Why is one questioned but the other not? Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this AfD should probably have been bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of All-time appearances for USM Alger, as they effectively cover the same content. All-time roster type lists are standard for clubs where sufficient sources exist to verify their content.
It's clear that the creator's intention is to improve coverage of their club. I think what they need to do is look at the some of the existing well-covered clubs – York City is probably the best of the up-to-date ones – see what articles are included and what they contain, and stick to those. But they do need to add their sources to the pages.
As to scope, seeing as the nomination comments on it: A long time ago, when these lists were first going through the WP:FLC process, the standard scope was 100 appearances and extras such as record-holders, international players or Hall of Famers. It was decided that such an approach wasn't acceptable, and we should aim for a complete all-time roster. For years now, standard procedure is to restrict the main List of ... F.C. players to those with more than a certain number of appearances: 100 tends to be the norm. Although some featured lists still haven't been updated from that scope: see e.g. Aston Villa or Ipswich. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GS and Struway, lists of players for clubs in fully professional leagues are acceptable. Agree though that the lead is not helpful, should be removed and work done to create and all-time roster. Fenix down (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this is a list of players in a fully-professional league. Although the article is unsourced, this can be easily fixed as there are plenty of sources available to verify the players played for the team. WP:BEFORE should've been followed. Omni Flames (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2016 (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.