Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Dawson (Irish footballer)


 * 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   delete. KTC (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Dawson (Irish footballer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD contested by IP who stated "There are more than 1400 League of Ireland players here. No reason for deletion." However, playing in the League of Ireland does not confer notability via WP:NFOOTBALL as it is not a fully-professional league. More importantly, this article also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant, third-party coverage. GiantSnowman 21:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Dawson will soon be signing for Football League side Yeovil Town on a contract so this article should not be deleted for this reason. I will update his Wiki entry personally once more links and details are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeovilmac (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystall ball and potential future notability does not matter. GiantSnowman 22:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage. As such, the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This debate occurs here frequently. The notability rules need to be modified. Deleting more than a thousand articles would be counter productive. The League of Ireland changes from fully professional to semi professional as often as the weather i.e. as the Irish economy dictates. 178.167.137.183 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcomed to go onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and present your case for how the League of Ireland is fully professional at the moment. Once you have done that and it is approved by regular members who work mainly with football articles or close to it then this player and other players in the League of Ireland can be considered fully-professional and notable. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood my point. I never said the LOI is fully professional now. The point is the notability rules need to be changed. If not this debate will never end. Pages will be deleted, pages for players will be created, debates like this will take place, consensus will not be reached. Again who really wants this exercise to be repeated for the 1400 League of Ireland players who have pages? What about other leagues that are also semi professional?178.167.137.183 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Any player article which does not meet NFOOTBALL or GNG should be deleted. GiantSnowman 20:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Any editor that will not listen to all sides should take up some other hobby. How about debating the notability rules instead of parroting the same line over and over?178.167.137.183 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Disputing and arguing with a much more experienced editor than you... a very "smart" idea indeed. Anyway if you wish to continue your argument about the notability rules than please start a new topic on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I am disputing and arguing here for some sense. The timeline of somebody's experience here is not relevant and indeed is childish and not very "smart" to point this out kid.178.167.154.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I know rules is rules etc and that technically he does not pass WP:Football or WP:GNG but whilst fully appreciating WP:CRYSTAL, FWIW it does appear he is due to sign for Yeovil next week --Egghead06 (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes him notable how? GiantSnowman 12:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He has signed for yeovil and is likely to shortly make his debut. As yeovil are a league club, this means he will notable. Telfordbuck (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I hear what you're saying, but signing for a league club doesn't automatically mean he'll play for them. Delete per nom. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 15:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeovil are hardly signing him not to play him. Have some patience and wait for his league debut before deleting the page. As said the whole notability issue needs to be seriously looked at.92.251.156.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He's been signed on a 6-month contract, it is quite sensible to suggest that he might never play for them. After all, Gary Bowyer was at Nottingham Forest for five years and never played a game! If you believe Dawson is notable and meets the WP:GNG then evidence it and improve the article. GiantSnowman 17:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He has signed for yeovil not Barca. And sensible is not a word to be thrown around here. Again the whole notability issue needs to be seriously looked at. 178.167.251.204 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There is certainly time to re-create the article after he becomes notable. If any of those arguing to keep the article is concerned that information will be lost then I suggest userfication (might be nice for some of these many "different" IP editors to sign up for accounts). -Thibbs (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not having an account does not lessen one's argument. Why delete and then re-create? No logic there. 92.251.197.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Deletion is appropriate now because the character is not currently notable. Re-creation might be possible later if the player becomes notable. Having an account would make the suggested userfication much simpler for you. And it would lessen the appearance that many people are arguing to keep when in fact only one person is arguing to keep based on a faulty understanding of Wikipedia's rules. -Thibbs (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - discussions like this kinda makes me loose faith in Wikipedia. Today it's a delete, tomorrow it's a keep? I don't see any point in deleting a non-stub article about a footballer who just signed for a team in a fully pro league. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and I don't see any point in keeping an article on somebody who currently fails GNG and NFOOTBALL based on the presumption that he might be notable on the future. If we all had your attitude it would set a poor precedent and is ultimately harmful to Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 13:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck my inappropiate non-policy-based vote. For some reason, I had the impression that you nominated it after he signed for Yeovil, and I'm sorry for my misunderstanding. I guess deleting this now, and recreating it if he makes his debut for Yeovil would be the right thing to do. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep You dont run wikipedia, thankfully. How about using common sense here? If we all had your attitude there would hardly be any pages here. Create not destroy. 92.251.178.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, the IP editor in this AfD as well as the one who contested PROD in the first place display behavioral similarities to former puppetmaster User:Rovers Forever including his insistence that sources are not needed at Wikipedia and his use of offline sources that are difficult to verify. The fact that Kevin Dawson has a connection to the Shamrock Rovers makes it very likely in my view that this is the same banned user. -Thibbs (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2013 (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.