Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David O'Connor (footballer) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80SRFC80 (talk | contribs) at 00:48, 17 July 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

David O'Connor (footballer)

AfDs for this article:
David O'Connor (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 9. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to User:Sjakkalle: The Zero assertion is not correct - having no professional league does not consign notable Irish players to nil. Players who represent the national team, those that take them to the Olympic games etc are all encyclopaedic enough for inclusion, as are those that achieve significance that gets enough subject of article coverage for general notability.--ClubOranjeT 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: This old chestnut again. The League of Ireland moves in and out of professionalism like the pedants here move in and out of sanity. Are you going to delete 1,290 player pages? Get a life please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stated by several users above, fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE (none of the available source cover the subject in detail, and several of them are not reliable at all, such as ones from Soccerway, Eufo.de, Walk the Chalk and ElevenASide.com). --Angelo (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, well now we have pretty much all the members of the Footy Project that usually !vote en block and incorrectly endorsed the deletion of the first AfD closed by "one of their cronies".
  • Thankfully there were enough neutral outsiders to make forced them to see common sense. These editors are so blinded by the deeply flawed WP:ATHLETE that they have forgotten about it's superior parents WP:BIO and WP:N!! These are the editors that consider this footballer is 100% notable but the captain of an Irish league winning side that has 200 games and 50 goals under his belt as well as under age international experience is not notable! They are blinded by WP:ATHLETE and WP:OWNERSHIP - they really cant see the wood from the trees.
  • There are multiple sources from the highest of levels of nationwide media which provide the information outlined about this player and his exploits of the football field - that passes WP:BIO and WP:V.
  • He has been part of two teams which have won the FAI First Division title. He has played in the FAI Premier Division which is the top flight of national football and a predominantly professional league from which the top four qualify for European football. He has now scored in that league, details of that goal are explained within the article - that passes WP:N.
  • There is a strong precident that Those who play in the premier division are notable. See recent AfD's here, here and here which have shown no concensus to delete.
  • The multitude of sources for veribable sources and playing top flight football in Ireland trumps WP:ATHLETE - which is a crude, deeply flawed and inferior policy to BIO and N.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The player doesn't meet the WP:ATHLETE guideline and the sources provided do not satisfy the conditions of WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, let common sense prevail, the WP:ATHLETE guideline is quite obviously flawed. Fionnsci (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article passes WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:V which trumps the flawed and rigid WP:ATHLETE.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're all just trivial name-checks though in transfer round-ups and match reports. None of them are about his exploits as a footballer thus failing WP:N. I'm not questioning Soccerway's validity, as it's used to back up stats - in this case it just proves he's played LoI which means he fails WP:ATHLETE.--Jimbo[online] 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the man is from Tallaght I think he would say trivial name checks me bollix! - and I would find it hard to disagree with him. The are detailed descritions of his goal in a variety of national media outlets.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a player in a country's highest football-league, professionaly or not, may not pass WP:Athlete, however WP:Notability in every case. While some of the references given in the article may indeed come under WP Selfpublished sources, others pass as WP:Reliable Sources of course.
    • If they were specifically about him they would, they fail WP:GNG as they're trivial name mentions. --Jimbo[online] 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is starting to stink of hyprocrisy! Are you saying that you wont support an article unless the football has a substantial article about them in a recognised reliable source? Funny because most of the football bio's on wiki dont have that and just use the bio page from their club website and a link to Soccerbase!!! I really think the guys on the FOOTY project need to wake up and smell the coffee - to show how stupid the use of WP:ATHLETE is in this issue. Jimbo just removed a prod from the article for Steve Hutchings - now this is a guy that play one game as a substitute in the fourth level of English football and the only sources in the article are a link to his club bio and a link to Soccerstats page! Now compare that to the article we are discussing here and it will show you how far this flaw policy has been warped!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing hypocritical about it. He passes WP:ATHLETE as he has played in a fully-professional league. The article is a stub, which invites users to expand it. Articles aren't deleted on lack of content, but the criteria set. --Jimbo[online] 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is WP:ATHLETE the only policy that you take into consideration. For God sake - it about notability man - note-a-bill-ity! WP:ATHLETE is a sub section of WP:N - this sets out the following
  • A. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material - check
  • B. which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject - check
  • C. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability - check

--Vintagekits (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it clearly states that if the depth of coverage is not substantial then a "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" - so even if you dont consider the detailed description of his goal "substantial" the you cannot deny there are multiple reliable sources.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_O%27Connor_(footballer)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=302518144"