Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Geaney

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. Skomorokh 17:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Geaney

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

Delete. This was one of those unsourced biographies that had been hanging around for 5 years. Well, we found some sources. Two blogs, and one other article which does mention her in passing. The problem is, I've done an extensive Google News Archives search and am not really finding anything to suggest this person passes our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would have thought a hockey player that had represented her country, as long as this can be verified, which appears to be the case here, would be likely to pass WP:ATHLETE, but we need to know in which competitions/matches she played in. Deleting this would be a loss of 2 sentences so I can't really see an argument for keeping without further evidence of coverage. --Michig (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Armbrust (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATHLETE says "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". It does not say anything about "know[ing] which competitions/matches she played in". We have a reliable source that states that Geaney played on a national team in international competition. The problem is, given her birth date, this was almost surely in the mid 1970s, and news stories from that era are generally not available online. The sources that would give details surely exist in print, but it might well take some time in a reference library, quite possibly a reference library in Ireland, to find them. Still we have a WP:RS stating that this person was a "former Irish hockey international". I contend that fulfills WP:ATHLETE, and makes the person notable. True this is less cited coverage than would be expected for a player from the internet age, but under the circumstance i think this should do. I might add that the "two blogs" (two issues of the same online publication) appear to be quoting official results, and to be serving as, in effect, a special-purpose newspaper for golf in Scotland. It accepts paid advertising, and appears to have an editorial process in place. It thus should, IMO count as a reliable source for the kind of content (specialized sports news) it contains. (seee http://scottishgolfview.com/Advertising.htm) But i grant that the mentions of this person in Kirkwoodgolf are not sufficient to provide notability on their own. DES ^(talk) 04:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can also find several references, such as http://www.sportfocus.com/newspub/story.cfm?ID=16997 to a Mary Geaney who was the captain of the winning team in the 1980 all-Ireland Camogie championship, and was "Kerry’s best known camogie player", which would IMO fulfill WP:ATHLETE. This is the right time frame and location (County Kerry, Ireland) and might well be the same person, but so far I can't establish it. DES ^(talk) 04:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment The Sunday Tribune reference is basically the same passing mention ("the former Irish hockey international"). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 07:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets all athlete guidelines. Ikip 02:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiably played hockey for Ireland, so, per WP:ATHLETE and common sense, is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2010 (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.