Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Neill


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Billy Neill

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Now also sourced by this, which does meet RS policy, and shows notability. GiantSnowman 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, does that consitute a "reliable, third-party, published source"?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but I'm not trying to prove this article passes GNG, which it doesn't yet. I'm using the source to prove sporting notability, which I am satisfied that I have done. GiantSnowman 21:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep:
 * there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia with no reliable sources and which haven't been deleted;
 * there is no doubt that the player in question is notable, having been named as an Ulster Footballer of the Year (this is referenced);
 * there is no question of anything libellous being included in the article;
 * there is no reason to query the accuracy of any of the information provided;
 * "reliable sources" have been provided for much of the information in the article - so, even, if some material is based on an "unreliable source", there is still merit in retaining the article, even if some material is to be removed;
 * finally, a request for additional sources is included at the top of the article, so it seems premature to be deleting it.Mooretwin (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2009 (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.