Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Doolan


 * 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 Speedy keep --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

John Doolan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-Notable. Simply being an English footballer should not be enough to establish notability. Padillah (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. His team belongs to Football League Two. --Eastmain (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Per WP:BIO. I have added a reliable source to the article too. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfies WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Obviously satisfies WP:BIO. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - clearly notable, has Padillah even read WP:BIO? GiantSnowman (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and nowhere in there does it controvert WP:NOTE. Is EVERY professional athlete notable regardless of their contribution to the sport? Now that there is a secondary source the argument falls flat, but at the time of nomination the article was almost literally "This guy plays soccer", and that alone is not notable. Padillah (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ...If they've played a professional game, then yes... Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite, if they've played a professional game and are noted in secondary sources. Now that you have added that source we can stop the AfD. I still think it needs help but that's a different RfX, thanks for adding that content. Padillah (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically he's right, WP:BIO isn't enough on it's own. John Hayestalk 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Was a perfectly adequate stub, which could be expanded (and which I have done). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 29 February 2008 (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.