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. ffm 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POV / WP:OR list of "notable players". Category:Persepolis FC players serves the same purpose. --Jimbo[online] 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep, per this discussion. It's not an AfD, but the reasons behind it are basically the same. No doubt the current criteria of "notable" on this list is inherently POV, but that's a reason for improvement and not deletion. Putting in a similar requirement of 100 apps would be preferable. Of course, being an Iranian club doesn't help with the ability to source this - what with being a rather obscure nation in footballing terms - and if sources for this page can't be found, then I would support deletion. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In its current form, delete. The article currently has no inclusion criteria, and is therefore not compliant with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. However, if some criteria could be formulated, such as a minimum of 100 appearances for the club, then it could perhaps be kept. – PeeJay 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PeeJay, your complaint is a content issue, not a subject issue. The subject is clearly notable, it's just not structured with explicit criteria at the moment. It's off to a good start in that regard with the World Cup players section (which is clearly meeting a set criteria). matt91486 (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand, adding details not in the category (years of career, appearances, goals etc.) GiantSnowman 17:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. We had a similar deletion discussion about a year ago with the MLB all time roster lists -- take a gander at that discussion for why lists like this not only meet WP policies, but are not a duplication of categories.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 21 September 2008 (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.