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. This comes down to
WP:LISTCRUFT vs.
WP:GNG. Proponents of the keeping the article have provided several sources to their point, yet those citing LISTCRUFT (which should be noted is a mere essay) have little more than the link to the essay itself. Therefor, I believe that consensus exists to close this AfD as keep.
(non-admin closure)Kharkiv07 (
T)02:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)reply
not trivia is inappropriate and irrelevant as it refers to sections in articles consisting of miscellaneous, unrelated items. What we have here is a separate list of related items; a quite different thing.
Andrew D. (
talk)
00:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Clarityfiend's rationale and the additional source found by NA. This is also a list with a clear inclusion criteria, with the majority of the entries being sourced. Compare this with some articles in
Category:Nicknames in sports, which are lacking in sources for the main. Everything on WP is triva/listcruft to the next person. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead11:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per above demonstration of meeting GNG. Would like to see every line sourced, but it's pretty well referenced at the moment. Recentism is an issue but AFD isn't meant to be for cleanup. The advantage of this list, vs finding them in each and every article, is that it's a convenient place to search if you don't know who had a certain nickname. Should only list commonly used nicknames though, not every headline writer's one-off names. And our main online source of info, ESPNCricInfo, includes nicknames on their profile pages - ie
Alfie/JL.
The-Pope (
talk)
16:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Lugnuts - Ah I walked straight in to that...., To be fair technically the only thing I did was move that from the main article to a new one
[1] but point taken, I agree it is shite and if nominating it would make you feel better than be my guest!. –
Davey2010Talk14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Hehe, I meant that in good humour (and I think it was taken that way!) In other words, one man's "sort of shite" is the next man's slaved over masterpiece that could one day get a GA or FA status. I've already put my case forward on why I think this AfD should end as keep, so I won't repeat that. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead14:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Haha to be honest I did wonder if you were being serious but you are absolutely right there ... I should probably choose my words more wisely in future!
, Well I've struck the !vote before someone actually gets pissed off and no doubt takes me to ANI
. –
Davey2010Talk14:57, 3 December 2015 (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.
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. This comes down to
WP:LISTCRUFT vs.
WP:GNG. Proponents of the keeping the article have provided several sources to their point, yet those citing LISTCRUFT (which should be noted is a mere essay) have little more than the link to the essay itself. Therefor, I believe that consensus exists to close this AfD as keep.
(non-admin closure)Kharkiv07 (
T)02:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)reply
not trivia is inappropriate and irrelevant as it refers to sections in articles consisting of miscellaneous, unrelated items. What we have here is a separate list of related items; a quite different thing.
Andrew D. (
talk)
00:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Clarityfiend's rationale and the additional source found by NA. This is also a list with a clear inclusion criteria, with the majority of the entries being sourced. Compare this with some articles in
Category:Nicknames in sports, which are lacking in sources for the main. Everything on WP is triva/listcruft to the next person. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead11:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per above demonstration of meeting GNG. Would like to see every line sourced, but it's pretty well referenced at the moment. Recentism is an issue but AFD isn't meant to be for cleanup. The advantage of this list, vs finding them in each and every article, is that it's a convenient place to search if you don't know who had a certain nickname. Should only list commonly used nicknames though, not every headline writer's one-off names. And our main online source of info, ESPNCricInfo, includes nicknames on their profile pages - ie
Alfie/JL.
The-Pope (
talk)
16:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Lugnuts - Ah I walked straight in to that...., To be fair technically the only thing I did was move that from the main article to a new one
[1] but point taken, I agree it is shite and if nominating it would make you feel better than be my guest!. –
Davey2010Talk14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Hehe, I meant that in good humour (and I think it was taken that way!) In other words, one man's "sort of shite" is the next man's slaved over masterpiece that could one day get a GA or FA status. I've already put my case forward on why I think this AfD should end as keep, so I won't repeat that. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead14:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Haha to be honest I did wonder if you were being serious but you are absolutely right there ... I should probably choose my words more wisely in future!
, Well I've struck the !vote before someone actually gets pissed off and no doubt takes me to ANI
. –
Davey2010Talk14:57, 3 December 2015 (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.