Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shrewsbury Town F.C. players

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. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[]

List of Shrewsbury Town F.C. players[edit]

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

List has four players, which is about 1,000 short of its final target. Doesn't look likely to be completed any time soon, and if in the future someone wishes to recreate the article with a more complete list then as it stands this article will be of little use to them. Echetus Xe 19:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Keep and expand. --Michig (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Keep Since they play in a fully professional league their players will be notable. Hypothetically you could merge then de-merge when more players were added, but why bother? Football subjects often attract fans who will contribute. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Keep A notable club with lots of notable players. An incomplete list is not a valid reason for deletion and the article has potential for growth. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Keep - something being incomplete is not a reason to delete. I'll happily start expanding this article when I have time. Giant Snowman 10:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. No-one doubts that the topic is notable, and if there was prior evidence of the list likely being expanded in the foreseeable future, it wouldn't have been nominated. Though I'm pleased that an experienced editor has enthusiasm for improving this and all the other currently nominated similar lists when he has time. And he's correct that something being incomplete isn't a reason to delete. But I'm not convinced it adds much to Wikipedia's credibility if we insist on keeping an out-of-date, unsourced, BLP-violating stub indefinitely – it's already lain untouched for 15 months – until GiantSnowman or someone else finds the time to expand it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[]

I'm busy this evening with the football but I'm willing to start improving as soon as tomorrow - it will be far from complete but will be able to show the potential and hopefully encourage other editors to get involved as well. This is a collaborative project after all. Giant Snowman 10:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Keep - the topic is notable even if the article is incomplete, which is never grounds for deletion. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[]

keep As per above. Govvy (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[]

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.