Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese footballers

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. NW (Talk) 15:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taiwanese footballers

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

This article is literally a category in list form. Every player here - and many more besides - are already listed in Category:Taiwanese footballers, with no additional information presented. The fact that many of the articles listed on {{Association football players}} redirect to categories or other, more general articles show that there is no need, and no desire, for such a specific 'List of Fooian footballers'. Note, a previous AfD, in which this article was one of multiple listed, resulted in a 'No Consensus' vote. Giant Snowman 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's perfectly permissible to have both a category and a list duplicating the same function, because each has its own advantages. See WP:CLN for detailed reasoning.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this list provides no additional information which is not contained by the category of the same name. It is not as comprehensive as the category and is much more difficult to maintain. In short, it is less useful than the category and unnecessary. Jogurney (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Serves no real purpose. We don't have a list of English footballers for example because the category already does that. How does this list benefit Wikipedia? Also many of the players in the list don't even have pages and probably aren't notable enough to have one in the first place. Spiderone (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite Jogurney's statement to the contrary, this is providing additional information: we have their actual names given as well as their romanised names. This could easily be converted to gives dates of birth (and death, if this isn't meant just for living footballers), their teams (forgive the term; I can't remember what it's actually called), if they've been capped, etc. Keeping nonnotables out is easy: an article could be required for a player to be listed. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's all so easy, why not improve the article to back up your argument? Giant Snowman 18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are correct that it provides given and transliterated versions of the names (completely unsourced, of course). I don't think that's sufficiently more information to justify the list (especially the maintenance needs of such a list). Jogurney (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Nyttend and S Marshall, except that it is fine for players without an article to be included in a list. Rlendog (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it is fine for non-notable players to be included then how far down can you go? If I had a Taiwanese cousin who played for a pub team could I add his name to the list? Spiderone (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would consider footballers who have been on the roster of a team that would qualify them for notability but have not played a game yet. I am fine with restricting to notable players but the criteria for inclusion on a list are less stringent than the criteria for a standalone article. Obviously, your Taiwanese cousin who played for a pub team would not qualify even for a list. Rlendog (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is a useful list in-keeping with Wikipedia. Eldumpo (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When I created the page, my original idea was to have a list of players who have played for Chinese Taipei national football team. For most players (especially retired players), I could not find enough information to create individual page for each of them, but their names appear several times in the source I found from the Internet, news archives, international match summaries, etc. Besides, I also feel it is necessary to have a Chinese-Romanized name mapping because there have been several romanization system officially used in Taiwan (such as Wade–Giles, Tongyong Pinyin, etc.) and some players' name are not even compliant to the standards. -- scchiang (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the presence of red-links alone leaves me satisfied that this can't readily be converted into a category for now. The addition of other information (sortable by start/end of career date? note whether played for the national team or not? position, at least for goalies?) would mean that the list would still have advantages over the category once the red links are sorted out. Alternative romanizations provide another advantage for list form over just having a category (multiple forms of name can be listed) TheGrappler (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs some improvement, but then so do (literally) millions of articles on Wikipedia. It covers information that is not available via the category page, and offers a list of redlinked players to add articles about. Taiwantaffy (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that nn players (those who haven't played in a fully professional league or for the national team) shouldn't be included but that is an editorial matter. Including the actual names add value. However, the key point of such a list is the ability to have red links of notable players to identify where articles need to be created. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:34, 26 August 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.