Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of football (soccer) players by nickname

Proposal for group nomination

Looking at the arguments being made here so far, that are not specifically about a lack of sources in this particular list, they would all seem to me to apply universally to all the lists of nicknames by sportperson, namely: it's trivia, it's "unencyclopoedic", it's unmainatinable/might be forever expanding/never complete, it has no inclusion criteria, it is childish, so perhaps to save any resultant inconsistencies in the coverage of the pedia should this be deleted, I propose a group nomination is in order, to leave no inconsistency about the status of these type of lists on wikipedia. From Category:Nicknames in sports, we have:

• List of North American football nicknames (AFd'd twice)
• List of hockey nicknames - which interestingly has the hatnote "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness"
• List of baseball nicknames - Currently has an inclusion criteria of sorts in the lead, but the list still numbers over 2,000 entries
• List of darts players nicknames
• List of nicknames used in Australian rules football (Afd'd once)
• List of nicknames used in basketball (Afd'd once)
• List of nicknames used in cricket
• List of sportspeople by nickname (currently nominated) (Afd'd 3 times)
• List of snooker player nicknames

If people can please indicate whether they would support a group nom, and if not, why not. MickMacNee (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• support my own nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• neutral (at this moment). In some sports, the nicknames are relevant, particularly darts. I'm not going to vouch for American sports, which may place particular relevance on nicknames or not. But those sports where nicknames aren't entirely relevant I would probably support your proposal. Peanut4 (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• strong oppose. As I've pointed out, at least one of these has been nominated in the past with a strong consensus of keep. Bundling such previously nominated articles with other which may or may not be worthy of keeping on Wikipedia is a sure-fire way to end up with a trainwreck. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support. These articles are riddled with b.s. 1) There are so many fake entries it is unbelievable. 2) Practically nothing is sourced. 3) All of the arguments the nominator summarizes are accurate. 4) Many (most?) of the "nicknames" are not nicknames at all (i.e. monickers used by the person or commonly applied to the person), but rather are random journalists' one-off turns of phrase that an editor here or and editor there personally decided was a "nickname" (WP:OR). 5. Nothing valid and of encyclopedic value will be lost, since the verifiable nicknames can/should be added to the infoboxes (or elsewhere, if no infobox) of the articles to whom they apply, and if the person is not notable enough for an article they aren't really notable enough to be in a list article either. If someone out there on the Net wants to find out the real name of "Slasher" Cockburn, some minor-league sports figure that would fail WP:N (or vice versa, looking for so-and-so's nick), that is what Google is for. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. PS: I am a member of WP:SNOOKER, under the scope of which one of these articles falls, and I'm still in support of dumping these non-articles as a class. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose It is true the content of some of these pages is dubious - but the answer to that should not be "delete", but an effort to improve them. Also, while it's true that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", it's also true that there are some types of information that will not be collected or organized anywhere else. I do not support the deletion of these articles; I do not support the group nomination.