Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 August 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year

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

The only thing that separate this list from List of York City F.C. players is the smaller size and an ~~unreferenced~~ inclusion of caps. Who became clubmen could easily be indicated at the list of players. A little note could even indicate what level they where at, if that's important. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 16:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 16:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the interests of qualitative and productive discussion, I think that all the similar lists should be added to this nomination. Otherwise in all likelihood we will end up with either different decisions or fractured discussion relevant to all of the lists. --WFC-- 16:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but I don't know how to mass-nominate. It probably generate some opposition from article 'owners' Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 16:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nominator keep !votes should be completely ignored unless sound ~~deletion~~ AfD rationales are given. Besides, if the admin closes democratically, the decision should be taken to DRV. --W F C-- 16:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As this is a featured list, a notification has been added to the featured list candidates talk page. --W F C-- 16:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume Sandman has put this up for AfD as he disagrees with the notion of "Player of the Year" type lists (please correct me if wrong)? I understand that (but don't agree with it), but surely some sort of consensus should have been gathered at WP:FOOTY before going ahead and nominating this and possibly all the other lists of this type at AfD? And in regard to your comment about caps being unreferenced, I recommend you take a closer look at the "Notes" column. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also disagree with ~~the notion~~ his opinion. In Sandman's defence he did try, but got no response in four days. --WFC-- 16:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I retract my comments regarding caps. Whether this is a content fork or not, is not a privilege reserved for the footy-people. Regarding my thoughts of POY lists, I'll keep those to myself. Remember this is a deletion discussion, not a competition in second-guessing motives. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 16:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then exactly why do you believe the POTY lists should be deleted? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Se nomination. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For disclosure I'm an author of a similar list. I've had a think about whether it would be appropriate to expand on my position given my vested interest, but I agree with sandman. The important thing is the strength of the rationale, not the motivation behind it. This list was reviewed against the featured list criteria, which has explicit criteria against content forks. It is also part of a featured topic, which means it has been through another layer of scrutiny, where reviewers had the opportunity to object on the content fork front. The lead, season of the win, by position and by nationality detail would be out of place in the main club article or the list of players. Several players have made fewer than 100 appearances; while the list became featured with the caveat that "other notable players are also included", I don't think such a critereon would stand up in 2010. See the (complete) lead to the incomplete List of Watford F.C. players (fewer than 50 appearances) for how I believe noteworthy players who have made few appearances should be tackled. --W F C-- 18:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the recently promoted List of FC Barcelona players I had included players with <100 apps, due to them being noteworthy, so such a criterion does pass in 2010. The fact that it has passed FLC and FT doesn't make this list infallible. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair comment on the Barcelona list (albeit I don't think that was a good call, as demonstrated by how it's done with Watford). And you're right, no article is immune from deletion. I won't do this myself due to a conflict of interest, but I would suggest that if those two discussions are to be rendered null and void by this one, it might be worth informing the people that reached those conclusions. --W F C-- 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is a Featured List and is a part of a Featured Topic, so it has obviously been deemed worthy enough to exist on a number of occasions. Btw, if Featured content is to be deleted, isn't it supposed to undergo a featured content review first? – Pee Jay 22:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing wrong with "Player of the Year" lists, especially one as impressive as this. Giant Snowman 18:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see anything wrong with the list. There is some overlap with another list but that is not a reason to delete. As a Featured List, there is (or at least was) consensus that the list meets all the Wikipedia criteria for content inclusion, and I agree with that consensus. Rlendog (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Featured content it would have been carefully scrutinised. --Jimbo^[online] 11:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These "its-FL-so-keep" does seem close to an appeal to authority.12:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  - I'd say you're clutching at straws trying to disvalue a well researched and more than notable list. --Jimbo^[online] 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Featured lists frequently get failed on critereon 3(b). Probably more than any other criteria. That is why it can usually be assumed that featured lists are notable. Ironically, its bigger, more recognised sister has no such layer of scrutiny. --WFC-- 23:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know that's true but it has not been brought up in neither the FL nor the FT nomination. I could better respect the arguments if they addressed the 3.b "not a content fork" directly instead of saying "it passed FL so I don't need to think about it". What would have happened if a non-FL list was nominated instead? Delete? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 08:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is exactly why we should subject the list to a Featured List Review before attempting a deletion discussion. – Pee Jay 09:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        An FLRC would have been nice, but based on precedent, it is not required. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC) (comment and indentation tweaked at 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
        Just for information: the FL criteria at the time this list was promoted made no mention of content forks. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously. Isn't a content fork, and meets the criteria for stand-alone lists. Big Dom 11:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Nothing wrong with Player of the Year lists for professional club's as far as I'm concerned. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:25, 17 August 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.