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 to Delete but strongly suggest that an editing decision is made to move the article to List of Yugoslavia international footballers and expand, as suggested in this discussion. Davewild 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yugoslavia national football team goalscorers[edit]

List of Yugoslavia national football team goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia isn't a sports statistics guide. There's no indication of why five goals is a meaningful cutoff, or why goals by the Yugoslavian team is more notable than any other country, or why the ethnicity of the players should be noted. (That's what the Serb/Croat/Macedonian indicator is after the player's name, right?) It's largely an unmaintainable list, as it would have to be updated after each game. There are no references given. Does it include active players or historical players? eaolson (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia no longer exists. Its list of goalscorers is now "locked in time" as it was a national team that played from 1920 to 1941 and 1945 to 1992.
  • Somewhere in my brain I actually knew that. OK, a big "duh" moment for me. eaolson (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's such a problem to keep this article, I guess I could try copying List of Scotland international footballers (alphabetical) which lists both caps and goals in a sortable table. --Thewanderer (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My main point is that this leads to a policy of creating an ever-growing series of List of (nationality) (sport) (statistic) articles. Down that road lies madness. Why not also create List of Yugoslavia national football players that fumbled a goal, as well? (or whatever, I know nothing about football) This isn't even a list of Yugoslavia national football team players, it's a List of Yugoslavia national football team players that have scored more than 5 goals. I don't doubt that ethnicity in Yugoslavia mattered, but there's no source given for the ethnicities listed, and they're not in the original reference. If the point of this article is to use football to point out that some ethnic groups were discriminated against, then it's original research and soapboxing. eaolson (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Goals scored is probably the most significant statistic for footballers other than number of international caps. If you're worried that this will lead to dozens of similar articles, well they're already here - even club football sides have similar articles. American football has dozens of articles with stats about current seasons. Why are you assuming any point to the article other than to list a country's top goalscorers for the national team? I would agree that the cutoff could be higher than 5 goals, and maybe this could be merged into an article about the national team.--Michig (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the dictates of WP:V are necessary, not sufficient conditions for an article. WP:N is the only sufficient measure of whether a subject should be included. So yes, this subjects needs to have nontrivial coverage in at least one reliable source. As for the sole source in the article, the coverage is not substantial enough to pass notability requirements.
If there are "numerous ancillary sources which would support this article's sourcing and existence", why be coy? Let's see 'em. Skomorokh incite 18:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my comment. Also, Wikipedia policy never dictates, and WP:V actually does guide as to what we should have articles on, because it states we shouldn't have articles on topics for which no third party sources exist. Since there is one in existence, we can have an article on this topic. Notability was merely an extension of that which has been extended too far, and where guidance conflicts with policy, policy is deemed to have the stronger consensus. And WP:NOT is the page for determining what we do not include. All Wikipedia:Notability does is to guide as to measures for determining what we generally cover, it isn't exclusive, and is meant as a tool for people starting an article. I recall that point being very clear when we discussed, wrote and adopted it as a guideline, not a policy. It was never intended as a deletion tool. Hiding T 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've already listed one source found via a quick google search after you declared you not only couldn't find, but couldn't imagine such a source to exist. I don't think I'll be able to convince you that the others do too. If you have library access, maybe you could seek the proof yourself. Hiding T 18:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, maybe I'm being incredibly blond, but I cant see any link on this page or the article page to nontrivial coverage. Can you post the url in a reply here? Skomorokh incite 18:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is me being blond. I had assumed books were still acceptable as reliable sources. Could you clarify as to when that stopped being the case. Hiding T 21:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see it now. In what way does A statistical history of football in Yugoslavia establish the notability of a list of Yugoslavian national football team goalscorers? Skomorokh incite 22:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being blond again. Wasn't it your contention that "this subjects needs to have nontrivial coverage in at least one reliable source", and that would denote notability? Can you clarify what you mean for me. I thought you were demanding that there be an independent source for this information that was non-trivial. Can you clarify why this doesn't meet your standards, or have your standards in fact changed? Hiding T 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions again. I'm willing to presume that the book is a reliable source, and it is independent of this subject. Those are both necessary conditions for a source to establish notability of a subject. What's missing here is evidence that the book fulfills the non-trivial or significant coverage condition. From WP:N: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." I'll change my vote to keep if you can provide proof that the source meets this criterion for the specific subject of Yugoslavian national football team goalscorers. Skomorokh incite 22:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a better idea. You go through and remove every source you haven't read from every article on Wikipedia, and when you've done that, I personally will delete this article. Hiding T 22:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How, pray tell is that a better idea? Each article stands or falls on its own merits. If you have a problem with policies and guidelines, here's not the place to dispute them. The connotation that other articles might not meet sourcability standards, and so we should not enforce those sourcability standards (if that is what you're getting at) is a pretty transparent appeal to WP:WAX/WP:ALLORNOTHING. Not going to win you any hearts and minds here. Skomorokh incite 23:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not the one looking to change the policies and guidance, since I wrote key aspects of the policies and guidance we're discussing here. What we're arguing about is whether "I don't like it" is a good enough reason to delete. You're "I don't like it" has moved to the point that you have now prejudged the new source. I'm sorry it is an offline source and you don't have access to it, but as you have already stated you can't imagine such a source existing, I fail to see why we're still discussing the point. Your lack of both an open mind and any imagination in the face of evidence to the contrary is unlikely to win over hearts and minds too. Me, I care less about the article than I do about the thinking some people put into these debates. If you can't believe that a book entitled A statistical history of football in Yugoslavia contains the information needed to source this article, and is also an analysis of Yugoslavian football at both national and international level, and that that qualifies every hurdle you've put in the way, then you have pushed "I don't like" it to breaking point. Happy editing. Hiding T 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And by the by, if you wish to post your address, when I get the time I'll try and post relevant passages for you. Hiding T 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And by the by, since you state "this subjects needs to have nontrivial coverage in at least one reliable source" and one has been found, will you please amend your opinion to keep. Thank you, Hiding T 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.I disagree. WP:V lists a minimum standard for a fact to be included. It seems to be stating that the fact must be verifiable by a reliable source, but not necessarily true (which would probably lead to original research). It's talking about the sourcing requirement for individual facts. It doesn't set a standard for article topics. By your reading, any list in any source would be fair game for duplication in Wikipedia. eaolson (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cat stuck in a tree picked up by a local news story, and then CNN in a boring news night meets WP:V, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. WP:V trumps most policies but there are restrictions on it as well, including WP:NOT This is a Secret account 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were discussing a cat stuck up a tree I would understand your reasoning more. WP:NOT trumps most policies, but WP:IAR trumps that. We can play trumps all evening, it rather misses the point. All we are doing is saying I don't like it or I like it. Hiding T 21:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a vote for merge and delete? Skomorokh incite 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I'm a bit confused. Peanut4 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see how, the target doesn't exist, and you can't merge and delete per the GFDL. Looks like a keep, rename and expand to me. Hiding T 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify then. This list needs changing to one containing a list of Yugoslav players not just goalscorers and renaming appropriately. Whether that rename and keep, or delete and merge, or whatever, the final article ought to be named something as above and include more than just a handful of indiscriminate scorers. Peanut4 (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot delete and merge, it violates a basic principle of the GFDL. Hiding T 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) It doesn't, we just need to keep the attribution, something which many people (such as me) are capable of doing when merging.
b) He's not being picky, he's being wrong. Yonatan talk 12:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's better than a category and is useful for anyone looking for a comprehensive list of this now defunct national teams' goalscorers. Yonatan talk 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More