Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Costa Rican expatriate 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 00:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Costa Rican expatriate footballers

)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable list which fails

general notability guideline. Giant Snowman 16:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the near-identical article for the same reason:

Giant Snowman 16:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see List of Costa Rica expatriate footballers, a different article with same title on same subject. Delete by the way, too broad a topic, many players play at times outside of their country, no evidence that doing so bears special mention. --Jayron32 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've bundled the near-identical article in as part of the AfD. Giant Snowman 16:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this article was previously kept following this AfD in November 2011. I !voted to keep at the time, but now believe that it is non-notable. Giant Snowman 16:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I understand the concern about OR, I think it's evident that this topic has significant coverage in reliable sources and while the contents of the list itself need additional work, the topic is certainly notable and worthy of being kept (and improved). I started adding some evidence of coverage, as major newspapers have tracked this topic for decades and there are plenty of articles about the Costa Rican players in the Mexican professional league during the 1950s for example. Jogurney (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, then it needs an overhaul. I don't think we should break down country-by-country - as this means duplicate entries for players who have played in multiple countries. This is a matter for the article talk page, rather than AFD. Giant Snowman 16:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the article would not be significantly different than Category:Costa Rican footballers. While by no means all footballers play outside their home country, certainly enough notable ones do at at least some point in their career. I just picked 10 random articles from that category; nine of those players had played at least some point for a non-Costa Rican team. If 90% of the Costa Rican footballers that have Wikipedia articles have played outside Costa Rica, then the criteria noted in the title of the list is insufficiently narrow to be a meaningful list criteria. One might as well have created a list of "Male U.S. Presidents" or "Kings of France born in France". The list does not provide a meaningful way to discern among "List of Costa Rican Footballers" and "List of expatriate Costa Rican footballers". It's substantially the same list, at least as far as those notable enough for Wikipedia articles counts. --Jayron32 17:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Costa Rican expatriate footballers is even more appropriate. Giant Snowman 17:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the obvious solution is to limit the list to footballers who are currently playing outside of Costa Rica (otherwise, as you noted, the list would be quite large). I can easily make this change, but don't want to invest the time if editors are planning on deleting what appears to be a GNG-compliant list. Jogurney (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this solution, because there are lots of retired players who would suddenly not be covered. I don't see a need for this list (it'll either be too big, or far too narrow based on Jogurney's proposal), a category would be all that's necessary, and indeed more appropriate, even if this does pass GNG. In fact, if it does pass GNG, rather than being a list, it could be a proper article (or a good section in Costa Rican football, or whatever) - but that wouldn't be a reason to keep this list. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although extremely well sourced and one or two players I have heard of, I still feel this is just listcraft. There are plenty of categories and they should be doing the job, I don't see the point of this list, if anything you should make the category better.You could certainly take that written paragraph on the top of the list and place it as the description for the category. Govvy (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this true of every list? What list cannot be replicated with a category? Yet we have featured lists of various clubs' players (hundreds of them). I'm totally confused why those have been kept at AfD if the FOOTY project feels this way. Jogurney (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what the list is doing, is about, top scores, thats okay, list of season transfers, I think that covered by media fairly well, but this list is just the category in list form, it doesn't add anything the category can't do, it doesn't seem thoughtout. Govvy (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This list shows the player's clubs and the country they played in (similar lists indicate years/seasons active as well). It does contain information not found in a category and cannot be replaced by any one category. Jogurney (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this topic has been discussed in reliable sources as a group, passing the
talk) 19:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

t • c) 10:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent; I really don't think the category is needed either. It really isn't defining and the list doesn't seem to be of particular encyclopedic value. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Costa Rican press have found it defining enough to cover the topic for years (e.g., look at La Nacion's reference in the article). Jogurney (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2013 (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.