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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. The last two relists have not resulted in any further input so there seemed little point relisting it again. Michig (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian football transfers summer 2011[edit]

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

Delete as "excessive listing of statistics", WP:IINFO. I have removed all the unreferenced transfers, gutting the article. The transfer is important to the player, for which he should have a note at his article. Nothing more. C 679 18:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am trying to see what is wrong here. Transfer articles are very common on wikipedia (See articles in Category:Association football transfers).--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm glad you removed the unsourced content but these type of lists are notable & have long been viewed as such given the amount of media coverage of the transfer window. These lists are often some of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia at certain times of the year (not specially this one). Not sure why you have single out the Hungary list? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a previous discussion at WT:FOOTY, questioning such lists and I thought that it doesn't give any encyclopaedic information. Sure it's popular during transfer windows, but WP:POPULARPAGE is not a reason to keep it, either. The purpose of a list is threefold, information, navigation and development. I believe this information is severely limited and of niche use only; navigation is already provided by categories such as Category:Nemzeti Bajnokság I players and development is not applicable. C 679 19:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see why you targeted the Hungary article, but that is a very old discussion & I think views at WP:FOOTY have changed sustainably. Do you not remember discussing what was the best type of flag policy for these articles which was discussed for a month with many editors included & nobody questioned their notability. PS Popularpage was just a statement not my rationale. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know about this one, as my knowledge about Hungarian football are limited, but in general these lists are notable as they have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" and passes WP:LISTN. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, in general these lists are notable, but is this the case for this list? Even looking at one of the references, which is in Czech, it just says Marek Heinz returned from Hungary and quotes the player expressing his happiness to return to the club. There is no explicit link with the list in question in this discussion. Also, from the 44 references in the list, only four are not sourced from a primary source (one of the clubs involved). I would be happy to see a reliable source discuss such a subject as "Hungarian football transfers summer 2011" but I have yet to see such a discussion, rather only an assumption it is notable because a similar list such as England or Germany is. Let's go on the merits of this list. C 679 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course primary sources don't normally establish the topic's notability, but it was agreed in this discussion that primary sources where perfectly fine for transfers as news agencies frequently jump the gun, making prematurely announcements. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An important caveat, mentioned in that discussion by Struway2, is that "club sources only" should apply only to current transfers and that we should not consider the situation to be the same in an historical context, i.e. a year after they happened. Anyway to me, it looks like these primary sources deal with the player and not with the transfer window itself, so both of these things considered, that's why I sent the list to AfD. C 679 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:39, 20 January 2013 (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.