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 merge to List of Liverpool F.C. players. Black Kite 22:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100 Players Who Shook the Kop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural. I recreated the article which had previously been deleted by AfD.

The AfD concerns, as I understand them, were:

1. The list of names is copyright
2. Lack of notability

I have hopefully addressed those issues - the list has been removed, is warned against with a hidden comment and can be removed if replaced. And I've added five references. I thought doing this would be easier than going through DRV to discuss a notional improved article, but if I've got it wrong, my apologies and I'll speedy it, close this AfD and head there. Dweller (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The old AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/100_Players_Who_Shook_The_Kop. Having reviewed it, I now believe there may be an error in the assumption that the list is copyright - the selection was not based on "editorial opinion", but was a poll of ordinary fans, as the article makes clear. Nonetheless, let's discuss the article as is - I can investigate the copyright issue further with the result of this AfD already clear. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - OK then, ignoring any potential copyright issues for now, I still don't believe this information is worthy of a seperate article. If it is mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, then mention it on the Liverpool F.C. page. GiantSnowman 13:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that on the basis of lack of notability? I fairly effortlessly found a bunch of major media outlets referring to the poll when discussing former players. I'd concur that the mentions are mostly fairly trivial (I can't for the moment find the coverage it presumably gained when it was announced) but they are widespread and in sources with excellent credentials. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly because the idea of having a list of players, but without an actual list of players (due to the copyright issues), is nonsensical. Hence why it should be mentioned on the Liverpool main article, and not here. Or maybe on the List of Liverpool F.C. players page. GiantSnowman 13:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for returning to discuss. In response, I'd say that we have articles on many notable songs and films without including the copyright material the article discusses. (And in any case, the list may indeed be included in future... but I digress!) But mainly, if the concept is notable, it's notable, regardless of the inclusion of the list. Surely? --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we break it down to its simplest form, this is simply a list of players who played for Liverpool. While I am coing round to its inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, I'm still against it being a seperate article, and it should therefore be merged into either Liverpool F.C. or List of Liverpool F.C. players. GiantSnowman 09:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge content to List of Liverpool F.C. players, perhaps as another column in the main table? It should also be mentioned in the main Liverpool F.C. article (ie as a useful source). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close AfD and Relist if necessary - nomination is invalid - 6 days in, and no one has ever tagged the article! Nfitz (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange... Twinkle must be playing up again. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz is right, we'll have to close this AfD and nominate again to allow for fair discussion. GiantSnowman 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted as deletion subpage was not previously included in logs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warofdreams talk 11:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not see the substantial coverage of this list in multiple sources that would meet the general inclusion criterion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Malcolmxl5. There's no reason that this subject would be covered in any source outside the club, i.e. no third party reliable source coverage. – PeeJay 21:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled - there's already 4 references included that are "outside the club" and "third party". --Dweller (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet none of them mention the list in anything more than passing. They all just say "so and so came Xth in the list". Not good references, IMO. – PeeJay 07:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Liverpool F.C. players.--EchetusXe (talk) 21:11, 27 July 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.