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 delete. None of the keep arguments are policy based. (Mostly of the Other stuff exists and the look at the super wealthy! variety.) Guerillero | My Talk 06:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Premiership football club owners[edit]

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

PROD removed without reason. Although the Scottish Premiership and its member clubs are clearly notable subjects, I think collating the club owners in a standalone list is not a notable subject. There are also problems with WP:V; some of the information is not publicly available as some clubs are private companies, and reports of individual net worths are inconsistent. Some of the clubs are also moving towards fan ownership (e.g. Motherwell), rendering a list like this obsolete. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable subject. Giant Snowman 11:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication the notion of Scottish Premiership football club owners has received any kind of significant coverage as a subject itself. Seems like listcruft to me to an extent. Fenix down (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you can have this then this list has the same merit.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. At the top level of English football, you are mostly talking about multi-billionaires whose wealth (and ownership of the club concerned) is greatly publicised. At lower levels, which are more comparable to the majority of Scottish clubs, not so much. As can be seen from that table. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that clubs can be bought and sold by millionaires on a whim is an important subject (though some of the rich and powerful try to hide this). That some clubs are now going to community/fan ownership highlights how significant an issue this can be (and those clubs in fan ownership can be listed). Though yes, the list does need some more sources for the unreferenced parts. If you followed the guidelines at WP:BEFORE you might have found some. --Vclaw (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)#[reply]

Did it occur to you that might have already tried that? To give an example of how thoroughly hopeless it is to write an article on this subject, the most recent list in a reliable source (the FourFourTwo 2011/12 Rich List) gives the wealth of Vladimir Romanov (#47) as £100M. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to base it on a single list, different parts can come from different sources. There's plenty of more accurate/up to date reliable sources about the ownership of Hearts for example. Or the Sunday Times Rich List 2013 gives the wealth for a few of those owners. --Vclaw (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're admitting that it would be impossible to fully source this article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of the article do you think are not verifiable? If there are no verifiable sources for part, it can listed as unknown. There are plenty of other lists with parts unknown/incomplete, that is not a reason to delete them.--Vclaw (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Owning a club is one of the ways that the super-rich waste their money about. I say waste, because most football clubs lose money, so that the investment is more like a donation. By making the club a subsidiary of a profitable company, they can in effect reduce its group profits and hence their tax. In effect, HMRC is thus subsidising football on behalf of all of us taxpayers. The ownership of football clubs is certainly a notable subject, and the article's existence thus is justified. Peterkingiron (talk)

Do you have any examples of this in relation to the Scottish Premiership? Otherwise that sounds like original research to me. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - argument to delete appears to simply be that it's not notable. However no case is made for why it's not notable, and on face value, seems notable. Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see how this is a notable encyclopaedic article at all. JMHamo (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2014 (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.