Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of snooker 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. The scope is discriminate; the fact that the content is underdeveloped is not a reason to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of snooker players

List of snooker players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article is an extensive violation of WP:LINKFARM and has almost no context. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No context, no structure no references, no information beyond a list of names. You can get this content by clicking on the snooker player categories. Betty Logan (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly reasonable list - content is limited to professional snooker players which is sufficiently discriminate. We don't get rid of lists simply because we have similar information in a category. It would perhaps be useful here to add nationality, years active, etc. and expand the lede to provide more context - both easily done by editing. WP:LINKFARM is about external links and there are none here, so that's a pretty bizarre rationale for deletion.--Michig (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of says: "Mere collections of internal links", which is applicable for this article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 18:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:LINKFARM's second bullet does discourage the overuse of internal links, but it also states that navigational lists such as this can be an exception. A little more prose and information on individual players might be enough to overcome the problem. And it's not entirely redundant to the category, as redlinks can't appear there. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the whole thing. That paragraph states "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria." (my bold). --Michig (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but greatly clean up. This can stay but it needs to be different from the category somehow, listing redlinks and referencing them rather than it being just an unreferenced list. This is a good starting point. - filelakeshoe 16:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Lists go hand-in-hand with categories, per WP:CLN. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 12 May 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.