Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rugby union players by country

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. Consensus is to keep the article, while refining the inclusion criterion. Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of rugby union players by country

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

I have a number of problems with this list. A major one is that there is not a clear inclusion criteria. From what I can see it may include anyone who is notable that has played rugby union, regardless of whether they are notable for playing it, but I'm not sure. As per WP:LSC: "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" -- we don't have that here. If this was the inclusion criteria (having played rugby), I don't know any reliable sources (as per WP:LISTN -- "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources") that discuss this list as a group. We do have categories and lists that would seem to make this redundant, such as Category:Rugby union players, Category:Lists of international rugby union players and country-by-country lists such as List of Australia national rugby union players. Lastly this article is ten years old and has only a small handful of incoming links. An alternative to deletion may be changing to a redirect to Category:Rugby union players. Shudde ^talk 07:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shudde ^talk 07:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: A complete list of people who have played rugby union is a folly. Without a clear inclusion criteria this list is pointless. Even a list of everyone who has ever played in a test match would likely be too large for one article. Mattlore (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rework. Have this as a "list of lists article" IE - have every heading in the style of Argentina or Australia. Also see WP:CLN. Just because a category exists, doesn't mean a list should not, or vice-versa. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP as an index of articles and per WP:NOTDUP as complementary to the category structure. The nom, in addition to being unfamiliar with that guideline, seems to think it's harder to determine whether an article should be listed as a union rugby player than to determine whether it should be categorized as a union rugby player, when it's the same assertion of fact either way. So their argument about inclusion criteria can be dismissed as without basis and contradicted by their own nomination. The "strong delete" !voter doesn't seem to be commenting on this list, so it's hard to understand where they're coming from. Perhaps they do not know that lists can be limited to only notable entries, or they have not noticed that much of this list's content is organizing links to the separate lists for individual countries rather than repeating their content. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both Argentina and Australia don't link to lists of rugby union players from those countries. Instead they link to lists of players who have represented those countries in test matches. If the article was kept on this basis then the article would need renaming to something like List of rugby union players who have played for their country. Either way, we are agreed that if this article is kept then some inclusion criteria need to be set. It can not be a list of every person who has ever played the sport of rugby union. Most of those people would not be notable enough for Wikipedia articles (ie me, when I was at primary school). Mattlore (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is trying to make it a "list of every person who has ever played the sport...", so that's a strawman, not a valid argument. There are relatively few redlinks in this list, so even assuming all should be removed it doesn't appear that limiting inclusion to notable players has even been difficult in practice. Not that it matters here... postdlf (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if the list is limited to notable players, as you seem to be suggesting, that would mean that under the New Zealand heading for example there would be 1,125 player names? Even if you included the link to the list of national representatives, you would still need to list the >612 players that are in the category but have not played for the All Blacks. I don't understand what notability criteria you are suggesting to make the list worthwhile to keep. As per the nom, it is not worth keeping this article unless criteria can be established, hence the delete "vote". Mattlore (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lists can always be broken into sublists, whether subdivided by name or time period or other method.
      If by "notability criteria", you mean LISTN, it's obvious even from the portion quoted above by the nom that it's not required that all lists satisfy it; it's just one way to evaluate lists, and not really relevant here because we're dealing with an index of articles. Try reading WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN instead. postdlf (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's fine, I understand they can be broken into sublists etc. So are you proposing that this list stays and then 48 new articles of List of XcountryX rugby union players are created? I'm just trying to understand what you are proposing, as you said above you aren't proposing this to be a "list of every person who has ever played the sport...", which is how the title and intro currently read. Mattlore (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm proposing that editing decisions should be made by editors through normal, non-deletion processes. postdlf (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'No one is trying to make it a "list of every person who has ever played the sport..."' -- great, so what is your definition of notable? You haven't actually suggested one. Che Guevara and George W. Bush played rugby, but surely they're not going to be included. So notable for playing, but what is that? Can't be professional, because many notable players were amateur. First-class rugby? Well the definition of that changes from region to region (even finding a definition of first-class is hard). Playing internationally? In which case lets rename the article to say that for a start. -- Shudde ^talk 22:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I already asked above (and to which you have not responded), why do you think it's any more difficult to determine who belongs in this list of rugby union players than in Category:Rugby union players or its subcats? The inclusion criteria should be exactly the same. Why would you think otherwise?
      Would you categorize Bush as a rugby player? If not, then he shouldn't be in a list of them either. Do you think that this kind of threshold issue is somehow unique to this topic, or that we've never dealt with it in Wikipedia before? Many fields have hobbyists or dabblers as well as dedicated practitioners. Bush has also made paintings. Do you think that means we are therefore somehow unable to list or categorize artists? Do you think that just because there is a question regarding the inclusion of particular articles, that we must delete the list rather than use the list's talk page to resolve it? Are you unfamiliar with WP:ATD? postdlf (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it's so easy to determine the criteria for inclusion in the list, why not add it to the article! That would clear all this up. If you can't do that, then why insist it's easy? I don't know whether Bush would be categorised as a rugby player or not, arguments could be made either way, but as we're not discussing whether or how to categorise an article, but rather what's the inclusion criteria for a list, so why don't we do the later? Your argument seems to be that because Category:Rugby union players exists this list should not be deleted, but we still don't know what this list actually is (other than a list of articles in Category:Rugby union players -- which is a very circular criteria). If people want to create List of Test rugby union players by country, or List of professional rugby union players, or List of international rugby union players then great. I'm not opposed to that, all would meet WP:LISTN and have selection criteria as per WP:LSC. But the nominee here isn't any of those three lists, to be so it would have to be renamed, completely rewritten, and actually referenced. How is doing all that any different to deleting this list and creating a different one? -- and who is going to do it, those here that vote keep? Hands up anyone. I still don't know what this list is, other than maybe "it's whatever you want it to be!" -- Shudde ^talk 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that your nomination was originally based in part on the list duplicating the category (not a valid argument per WP:NOTDUP), your rationale seems to have shifted significantly if you now think the category also shouldn't exist, so I'm not sure what arguments you've abandoned and which you now stand behind. A "list of articles in Category:Rugby union players" is quite proper per WP:CLN, as has been explained throughout this discussion. Beyond that, you seem to have fallen on a WP:TNT argument, which I don't think applies here because there are valid entries in the list at present, and in any event a TNT-based deletion would be without prejudice to recreation of the same list topic and so wouldn't accomplish what you apparently want to accomplish. postdlf (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I struck some of the reasons for deletion, but my main reasons remain. At the moment I'm still not sure what this is a list of? So what it is people are actually voting to keep? Neither of the keep votes have actually clarified what the inclusion criteria is for this list. User:Lugnuts does suggest making it a list of lists, but of what lists? International rugby union players? In which case the page needs to be renamed, reorganised (for example George Gregan and Corné Krige are listed under Zambia, but played for Australia and South Africa respectively), and referenced (at the moment not a single entry is referenced). -- Shudde ^talk 22:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's for editors to decide through normal processes. Either a list (or list of lists) of players by country of origin or a list of players by team would be proper and verifiable. It's also conceivable that one list could organize links to both. postdlf (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it is very constructive to be saying "this list must stay" but at the same time to be saying "I have no idea what this list should look like". Obviously if it stays and becomes a list of lists of players who have played test matches, as Lugnuts seems to have suggested above, then that is very different than if it stays and tries to list all notable rugby players, like in Category:Rugby union players. It seems like all you want is a list here, without any idea about what kind of list, or for what purpose. Mattlore (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because neither a list of notable players of international matches nor a list (or list of lists) of all notable rugby players should be deleted. I'd probably expect "players by country" to mean "players by country of origin", but that's not something this AFD should be deciding, and even if it were decided that renaming was in order, that's obviously different from deletion. I feel like a broken record for linking to WP:ATD again and again, but I'm not seeing that policy observed in your or the nominator's comments. Please read it. postdlf (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing any problem requiring deletion here. Andrew (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the scope of the list should explicitly be reduced to individuals who are notable for playing the game, not just a laundry list of anyone remotely famous who has picked up the ball at some point. I think that undeniably that is what the current scope of the list is anyway, but best to make it clear. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:15, 8 November 2014 (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.