Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unattached footballers

List of unattached footballers

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

I deleted this as an uncontested {{

• Weak delete. I don't like list articles that change a lot and which easily get out of date. If the list is incomplete, and possibly also not very reliable in the people it does list, then it isn't going to be much use to anybody. A category is more maintainable so, if we are to have anything at all, I think we should have a category instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This list was a result of a CFD. I don't think it's maintainable as a list or a category, personally, but I have no opinion as to its deletion. --Kbdank71 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No evidence the list isn't OR. Being realistic: not maintainable. Certainly a select list, so essentially synthesis. But OR covers it. Ddawkins73 (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unmaintainable, and Wikipedia is not a listing service for footballer's managers to try to get football clubs to notice them. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely impractical - "unattached" is just a euphemism for "unemployed", and when one considers semi-pro players as well the scope basically extends to every able-bodied man between 16 and 45 who's ever played for a club. As a category this would be bad enough but it's totally unworkable as a list. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chris Cunningham's reasoning above, the impracticality of maintenance, and general uselessness of the list - are many people really going to come to WP thinking "gosh, I really need to know which footballers are out of work!"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Chris and Chris have already summed it up - this is
  (bring on the trumpets!) 11:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Chris & Chris. GiantSnowman 12:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unattached: UNmarried? NOT in a chain gang? Oh I see, it's a euphemism for UNemployed or just haven't realized that their retired; lots of them about these days; however, it's not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete User Page stuff. It helps to update the article but unencyclopedic. Matthew_hk tc 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How could you possibly know every single unattached footballer? Even if you did, if the one user that does suddenly decides that Wikipedia is just too stressful and quits, it will become out of date because no-one else will edit it. A clear delete.
  DeMoN2009 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete it would be definitely impossible to maintain such a list --Angelo (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, how does anyone know if a player is just between clubs or has actually ended his career? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 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.