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


 * 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. Consensus here seems to be that the article meets WP:N which trumps WP:ATHLETE – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

David O'Connor (footballer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2009 July 9. Neutral. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play in a fully professional league, and there's a lack of third-party sources to establish him as a notable player. Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  08:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:N as there are no verifiable secondary source. More to the point, he fails the notability criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo[online] 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  08:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 08:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The team O'Connor plays for is Drogheda United which is in the top league of Irish football. Ireland is not as strong a football nation as England, and the level of professionalism doesn't go as far down as in the English system, but it is still a league which receives as much coverage in the Irish media as if it had been fully professional. If we are to follow the "must be a fully professional league" to the extreme, the coverage of football players in Ireland would be zero, and I don't think that is the proper balance. I think the person passes general notability criteria; his actions on the football field, which includes scoring goals, are frequently covered in Irish sports press, and there is this profile for him which makes a short bio on him verifiable, and thus sustainable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.-- Club Oranje T 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment article now significantly improved and multiple references added.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, again all just trivial name-checks in match reports and stats/profile pages. Nothing about him personally. --Jimbo[online] 12:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - thats your opinion but like so often recently with regards this issue you have been wrong!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, how is it opinion - which of those new references clearly satify WP:N? Saying I've been wrong is clearly clutching at straws and doesn't belong in this AfD. --Jimbo[online] 14:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, Ssssshhh!! and double ssssssshhh! regards--Vintagekits (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 *  Delete Weak Keep. 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), but the sources provided do now meet the conditions of WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, let common sense prevail, the WP:ATHLETE guideline is quite obviously flawed. Fionnsci (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * A profile on a trivial site such as Soccerway is no where near close enough for him to pass WP:N. Articles must specifically be about his exploits as a footballer (not including trivial stats sites, name-checks in match reports and such). Articles on players in the LoI wouldn't be "zero" as quite a few would pass general notability on the extensive coverage you mention, the LoI and it's players get. --Jimbo[online] 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If that was the only source that was in the article then you would have a point. However, its not - have you a problem with RTÉ, Setanta Sports, Irish Independent, League of Ireland or Drogheda Independent?? So you have a problem with Soccerways!? Funny that its used as a source on over 500 artciles!.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * There's nothing notable about scoring a goal in a semi-professional goal. We need sources specifically about him, not one liners here and there in a match report. --Jimbo[online] 23:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said. Ssssshhh!! and double ssssssshhh!

--Vintagekits (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.  Phoe  talk  23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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
 * ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --Jimbo[online] 23:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * If you read my arguements, the trivial sources fail WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 23:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well lets see if anyone outside the usually "lock step" voters from the FOOTY Project agree with this ridiculous interpretation of the policy.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: ( He is a notable player, with reliable sources and plays in a notable league) 80SRFC80 (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Retaining this information adds to the notability of the league. Centre mid (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds of common sense. Numerous reliable sources that are not limited to the stats sites quoted above. Personally think the players in top leagues in all countries should be ok, and then any fully professional leagues below them. It's an internet encyclopedia after all. 8lgm (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment so you believe footballers who've played in the highest league in Montserrat and Faroe Islands etc should be deemed notable? --Jimbo[online] 09:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  —--Jimbo[online] 09:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep More deletionism. If this site is to continue as a reputable source for journalists covering notable topics topics such as the football league of Ireland, these kinds of articles should be maintained. Jhealy (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This site has never been a reputable source for journalists. This site only regurgitates previously published information. Journalists should actually do what they are paid to do.-- Club Oranje T 01:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

DELETE why is vintage tits hating on burton albion articles just because this nobody should be deleted. He fails all the policys mentioned upbove and a load of inferior mentions in 2 bob articles arent notable. Bbc is full off articles like this. Burtonboi_9t1
 * Keep per numerous editors above and numerouse reliable sources provided. BigDunc  10:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - As per Liam Patton, the LOI is as professional a league as you're ever going to get in a country like Ireland. The OP is obviously a pedant with too much time on their hands, or simply a crank with a bee in their bonnet. Dahamsta (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment New Zealand Football Championship is as professional a league as you're ever going to get in a country like New Zealand.... Football Federation American Samoa is as professional a league as you're ever going to get in a country like Samoa... Where exactly would you suggest the line be drawn?-- Club Oranje T 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Why would you delete an article that clearly there is a large support base behind keeping? The wikipedia articles on the LOI are expanding all the time, it is the top division in Ireland and in a service like Wikipeida I don't understand why you would be so intent on deleting the article? Besides the heavily-disputed rule which you are ustilising, do you have any other reason? Are your actions vindictive and bringing into question whether the LOI is really in your jurisdiction? Should all players who don't qualify as playing in a "fully professional" league be deleted? Does this cover players who played in the the earlier part of the previous century? Using this yardstick could be opening a can of worms-if this policy of targeting LOI players, who in our view firmly deserve a place on wikipedia, where will it end? Could you see attempts to distrupt and delete articles on football greats who didn't play in a "fully professional" league begin? Joseph McSweeney (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the player and league are clearly notable, and professional as all clubs pay their players. I don't understand why people wish to see all these articles of Irish top-level players deleted. There's too much reference in these debates to ATH, which is not a policy, and not enough use of common-sense and reasonableness. Eldumpo (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to meet WP:N with references in article. Meets WP:FOOTYN having played for fully professional teams at the top national level of the sport. Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 19 July 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.