Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Scannell


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Scannell

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:ATH as Irish league not fully professional Steve-Ho (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Steve-Ho (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable as Ulster Footballer of the Year 2009. Also he will be mentioned in numerous secondary sources - football reports, articles, etc. Mooretwin (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mooretwin -Drdisque (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - a combination of being Football of the Year, top goalscorer in his league (albeit it a semi-pro one) and the fact he is one of his club's all time top goalscorers (with over 100 goals) is enough to show sporting notability for this player. GiantSnowman 21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - simple.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per . I just wish that the "usual suspects" from WikiProject Football would judge notability of footballers from outside the United Kingdom in the same way, rather than the silliness we get about excluding players in their countries' top leagues based on the irrelevance that a few players in the league don't get a full-time wage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment usual suspects such as me? Who has the same opinion as you on this player? GiantSnowman 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, just because you're a "usual suspect" it doesn't mean that I don't agree with you on this case :) Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 7 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.