Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople by nickname (5th nomination)

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople by nickname

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Not needed; trivial and possibly WP:OR. Another point is that these sorts of lists will never be extensive exhaustive. There are millions of sportspeople on Wikipedia; if we were to assume that even only 1% of them had some sort of a nickname, we would still be talking about hundreds tens of thousands of nicknames. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players by nickname. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is, in fact, at least the 6th nomination! pburka (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the list is likely to aid readers in navigation and provide information per
  WP:LISTCRIT Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - seems like a sensible navigational list. certainly the redlinks should be removed (as implied by the nominator, it would be absurd to try to create an exhaustive list of people with nicknames), and perhaps some additional sublists should be spun out, but that can happen at any point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What's the OR argument? This page has over 150 references. Please elaborate. pburka (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I copied the sentence from the other discussion (where the article wasn't fully sourced). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if this AfD closed as Delete, shouldn’t this also close as Delete? They are very similar lists. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if these are all

WP:OTHERSTUFF but you will hopefully get my meaning. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

That list isn’t as specific. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having looked through everything, especially the last AfD, I'm going to say Keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Notable enough for news media to mention them, so notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 20:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Keep for all the reasons cited in the last five AFDs for this article. Worthwhile and useful lists.
  WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per consensus from the footballer AfD Spiderone 10:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the deletion cited is a reason why keeping this article is more important than ever. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's the nomination that we don't need as its arguments are flawed, being contrary to policy such as
  list of species and list of minor planets are all blue links, for example. When such lists get large, we just subdivide them. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Sportspeople, species, and planets are all countable, and we can make exhaustive lists about them. We will never be able to fully determine all the notable nicknames. It's inevitable that some nicknames aren't going to be included. Whereas, all minor planets will be included, and all players who have made at least 30 international caps for Lebanon will be known. We will never be able to 100% know all sports-related nicknames. If the nickname is notable, it can be noted in the specific player's article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused by this argument. These are all countable in the mathematical sense (they're not infinite). We can never expect to have an exhaustive list of sportspeople, nor of minor planets (on the other hand, numbered minor planets is just about manageable). That a list is incomplete doesn't seem like a good deletion rationale, and
      WP:LISTCRIT explicitly advises against trying to make most lists exhaustive. pburka (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Uncountable does not mean what you think it means. The definition is "too many to be counted". Even rice on a plate is uncountable (even though, obviously, the number of grains of rice can technically be counted). I agree, we won't have an exhaustive list of sportspeople; what we do have, however, are specific lists, such as footballers who have made at least 30 international caps for Lebanon (as I have pointed out above). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Such lovely
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Normal Op (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It hasn't been discussed as a group by reliable sources? Multiple books have been written about this topic. pburka (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a staple filler of sports journalism, e.g. ESPN's "The List: Best of the best sports nicknames" (mostly people), CBS Sports' "The 18 Absolute Best Nicknames in All of Sports Today", etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ubiquity of the phenomenon and discussion of the same in reliable sources. BD2412 T 05:48, 10 September 2020 (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.