Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This list only has six entries, which is usually not considered to be enough for a standalone list. Furthermore, the list itself doesn't add anything to the encyclopaedia that couldn't be included at Green Bay Packers. – Pee Jay 06:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason, the list containing even fewer entries:[reply]

Delete Already covered in the List of National Football League retired numbers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the retired numbers are also in Green Bay Packers#Retired numbers. Whatever additional information there may be in List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers should be included in Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame instead of a separate list. PK T(alk) 11:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retired numbers and the hall of fame are independent topics. What is the rationale for co-mingling them?—Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, the general information is covered in the main articles, the minor details aren't really needed and alone the subjects aren't notable. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See WP:SALAT, WP:LISTCRITERIA, and WP:LISTPEOPLE for policies and guidelines regarding standalone lists. The basic guidelines include: a defined membership, notable people make up the list, and the list is discussed in reliable sources. The main reasons listed to delete are that the list is not long enough and that it can be included in the larger article. From what I can see, neither of these are established in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The list is clearly defined (if the Packers have formally retired a number), made up of notable people (all professional football players with extensive careers and accolades), and is discussed in reliable sources as a cohesive list (see Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, USA Today, ESPN just to name a few). This list needs to be expanded and improved, but that is never a reason to delete an article. This list should expand on various things that wouldn't be included in the Green Bay Packers article, including backgrounds on each player, why the organization decided to retire their number, discussion about unofficial retired numbers, and the addition of future retired numbers. The Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame is a completely different topic and would not be appropriate for the list of retired numbers. It appears that none of the delete votes are rooted in any policies or guidelines, and just comes down to the article not being good enough at this time. Note to the closing admin that deletion discussions should be based on adherence to policy before determining consensus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My delete vote wasn't about it being too short or belonging in the main article, it was about it not being notable by itself. Your criterias listed are all fine for list in Wikipedia articles, but for a list to have it's own page it still needs to be notable. WP:LISTN is the policy I would refer to. From the sources you provided, two are about Paul Hornung, and one is about Brett Farve. They all do mention and list the retired numbers but they are not discussing that list or group of players specifically. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the sources do not need to be only about the list itself, but has to have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. As you just said, the list has been discussed as a defined group by independent reliable sources. The whole list is mentioned every time a new member is added. I guess I am not understanding the reasoning of this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I had/have a different understanding of the policy and general rules for notability. I've always thought that if it's just a passing mention of it in a source, it wouldn't qualify towards notability for a list or a general article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers Meets WP:LISTN, as it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The significant Chargers specific prose currently in the list is not in List of National Football League retired numbers, nor should it be. It is also not in Los Angeles Chargers, which is in line with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up an interesting point, List of National Football League retired numbers is not a topic usually discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Most sources only address specific teams and their retired numbers. There really isn't any connection between different teams retired numbers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as a content fork of a main article where the content already exists. Ajf773 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Los_Angeles_Chargers#Retired_numbers is a small subset of Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers, not a recopy or a POV fork.—Bagumba (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ¶ This is a list of employees who received special recognition by the company for which they worked (and two other employees who did not). Only citations two and five—both primary sources—discuss those listed (the former lists five people, the latter four). Two primary sources do not an article make, and can easily be folded into the parent company's article if editors there deem it appropriate. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 2 and 5 of Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers are not primary sources.—Bagumba (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know; I was referring to this version of the article for which this nomination is titled: list of Green Bay Packers retired numbers. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name of this nomination is confusing, because it added Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers afterwards. So you don't have an opinion on whether the 28 sources in the Chargers article meets LISTN?—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I followed the instructions at WP:AfD on how to create a multi-article nomination and this is what came up. I'm sorry for any confusion caused, but yes, the Chargers article is nominated for deletion under the same criteria as the Packers one – there is nothing in it that couldn't conceivably be merged into the Chargers main article. – Pee Jay 20:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay2K3: But why bloat the team article with the additional prose from Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers? This is standard WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to put the details in another article. While diehard fans already know the individual players, the prose gives the casual reader a high level overview on each player and the team's history of retiring numbers without having to click on the individual players in the list for details.—Bagumba (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: Yes, you did follow the AfD instructions correctly. I had thought the title should be more meaningful like with multiple nominations at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, and not just use the first page as the title. Unfortunately, the instructions are inconsistent across domains. Go figure.—Bagumba (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a close assumption, but the truth is broader: I have no opinion on that second article whatsoever. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to sources mentioned by Gonzo fan2007, there is also "Green Bay Packers retired numbers, hall of fame classes". Journal Sentinel. July 16, 2015.—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Lugnuts. Already covered in one big list (and elsewhere): no need for these two and 20+ more. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirect List of National Football League retired numbers to Lists of National Football League retired numbers and create lists for the rest of the teams that retire numbers. WP:LISTPEOPLE is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers too Enough sources mentioned above to meet WP:LISTN. Sure there is little prose in the Green Bay list currently, but enough sources exists where it could be expanded and the page would be in line with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE like Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Bay Packers and Los Angeles Chargers respectively. This page duplicates information found elsewhere. If the New York Yankees don't need a separate article for retired numbers (they have 21), then clearly no other team does either.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is generally not a compelling argument. The text at New York Yankees#Retired numbers should be spun out WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to a separate article that easily meets WP:LISTN. Also, take another look at Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers, as it has more information than is at Los Angeles Chargers#Retired numbers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Yankees retired numbers are covered by the Monument Park (Yankee Stadium) article. Spinning out another article just for their retired numbers would be redundant and duplicative. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Yankees do seem like a unique case. That aside, I do see from your !vote below that you generally agree that team-specific retired number lists can meet LISTN and be standalone lists.—Bagumba (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consider that Category:National Football League retired number navigational boxes contains many navboxes for teams' retired numbers, which are considered a very high honor. Per WP:NAVBOX No. 1: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. I don't think we want navboxes that are based off of sections of articles, which only invites more WP:NAVBOXCREEP.—Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for creation of the templates is that there should be an article on the subject. That does not mean that there needs to be an article if there is a template. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Similar team lists For point of comparison, there are also similar lists of honorees at Category:American football museums and halls of fame and Category:Major League Baseball museums and halls of fame. Those members are also enumerated in their respective team articles.—Bagumba (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A team can retire numbers and that makes for a notable subject per WP:NLIST. Some of the comments I see above, like those of User:Fourthords, are addressable by adding more sources that do exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should do away with List of National Football League retired numbers, then, and simply have lists for each of the 32 teams (possibly more if now-defunct teams once retired some of their numbers). – PeeJay 14:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "List of National Football League retired numbers" is still a valid search term. If retired number lists existed for each respective team, we could just covert the NFL list to be a disambiguation page containing a link to the 32 individual team lists.—Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have recently expanded the article significantly and added many sources. Again, the Packers list their retired numbers on their website and have a physical sign in their stadium highlighting this. There are a significant number of sources that note this group as a uniquely identifiable group with a defined membership of notable people. Multiple reliable sources mention the number retirement ceremonies and the notability of the entire group. Brett Favre's recent retirement ceremony, which was covered nationally in various news agencies should be enough to justify. There is also discussion in sources about future expansion from three different players that may be retired at some point. I am not sure how much more it can be made clear that this article now meets all WP policies and guidelines, in my opinion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The narrative portion of the Green Bay list has now been expanded to provide appropriate contextual information, and there is sufficient coverage of each team's retired numbers (as a cohesive topic) to satisfy WP:LISTN. Cbl62 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cbl62: You may have missed it, but as this was a joint AfD nomination with Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers, I assume you are also fine with keeping it since it is also well-sourced?—Bagumba (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my vote is to keep both on grounds that there is sufficient coverage of "each team's retired numbers" as a cohesive topic to satisfy LISTN. Cbl62 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2018 (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.