Page was deleted way back in March 2008 because the footballer in question failed WP:ATHLETE; however, he easily passes WP:N as he has had "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Links to four newspaper articles can be found on the player's official site. GiantSnowman13:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation I am in favour of allowing for the pages recreation, per the sources brought by GiantSnowman. As with all cases of relatively old AfDs, if the page is recreated I have no objection for it being sent back to AfD to regauge consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original deletion and keep deleted. Then and now, a player with not a single first team appearance in a fully professional team in a league at the national level, who still fails every part of WikiProject Football/Notability. There's no point recreating an article in the certain knowledge that it will be redeleted. – iridescent18:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I have not "missed the point completely". WP:N and WP:ATHLETE are both guidelines, not Wikipedia policy. In my opinion, for an article about a professional athlete WP:ATHLETE is clearly the more appropriate guideline to follow. – iridescent18:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he meets the general notability guideline (which he appears to), but you feel that the notability guideline for athletes supersedes, take it to AfD if recreation is allowed and make your case there. However, since he does appear to meet the general guideline, I see now problem with allowing the recreation of the article, and then allowing AfD to sort out the particulars. If it an issue of this DRV being cited as precedent in a future AfD, the closing admin can state in his closing that there was no prejudice to an immeadiate AfD on the recreated article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
allow re-creation- Just because he's an athlete doesn't mean we should ignore the general notability guidelines, which per the sources presented, this gentleman meets. Meeting WP:ATHLETE would be nice, but really not necessary in this instance.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
allow recreation ATHLETE carves out a series of exceptions where we include articles even if they don't meet WP:N. That isn't needed here because the individual meets WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that WP:N superceded WP:ATHLETE if the context of coverage was non football related (for example, a footballer who didn't meet WP:ATHLETE but was covered due to something unrelated, like a mid range clothing brand and a scandal). In this case however, the press coverage is about the football and events directly related to the football (like moving away from his mother or being bought out by Liverpool), which is exactly what WP:ATHLETE regulates. Being good at PR and thus getting more coverage in news than other players in the same situation doesn't necessarily make one notable. All things considered however, Allow Recreation, give interested editors a few days to add sources and create a meaningful article, and then, if anyone still wants to, defer to AfD. Usrnme h8er (talk·contribs) 09:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I was working on an entry for Dublin Pride festival. Its been deleted. I was planning on editing and building the entry over this weekend and now the entire thing is gone. Please put it back.
By the way the festival is volunteer run and raises money for charities and gay groups in Dublin. More information is on www.dublinpride.org. Other cities already have pride references such as London.
--Martin-09-DP (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While I am unable to access the page (as I am not an sysop and the page wasn't cached.) the statement by Matin-09-DP (whose name is an advertisement for the festival as well.) requesting that the speedy by overturned is an advertisement as is his user page. This leads me to believe that the deletion was a valid G11. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Also for purposes of full disclosure I have added the nom at WP:UAA, I have no objections to his editing or creation of the article (the one in his userspace) so long as it is not an ad, but I feel the username might violate the username policy on advertising. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as fully correct (non-notable organization and/or advertising). Note that a further request must be made here before moving the userspace draft back. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice the userfication above, and, having saw the previously deleted version a while back, was inclined to think that nothing improved. I acknowledge the CSD tag removal in good faith and offer an apology to the article's creator and others involved. MuZemike23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
