Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Patton


 * 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   no consensus. ( X! ·  talk )  · @450  · 09:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Liam Patton

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

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE. He fails WP:ATHLETE because although he played in the League of Ireland, it was not fully professional when he participated in it (1980s). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating the following articles on the same grounds:

All players who played in the League of Ireland before it supposedly became professional in recent years. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, namely WP:ATHLETE - no evidence the league was fully-pro at the time (and no evidence it is actually fully-pro at the present day). --Angelo (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is evidence that its a professional league.


 * Comment, how utterly feckin boring! Can you please concentrate on one AfD at a time and try and get concensus there before AfD numerous articles - it will just be the same discussion on every page. The FAI top tier slips in and out of full time professionalism. Here is a source from the BBC which explictily outlines full time professionalism within the league. Have you a source which outlines that the league was not fully professional for every season which this player played top flight football in Ireland?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the onus is more on providing sources for the players nominated, and justifying why they are notable people and athletes. None of the players nominated even have so much as a source confirming their identity. But, anyway, here's a source which shows that a Dundalk player also works for Ryanair. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt the articles are pretty shit but that is an arguement to improve them and not to delete them which is the issue here. Is your nomination based on a lack of sources or notability? Like I have said - the league slips in and out of professionalism almost on a year by year basis - dependant on the clubs that have been promoted and relegated and the state of the economy. I have provided a source which states the league is professional. Have you a source which states that league was not professional for the years that all those players played in the top division?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Which is the issue here"? Both - if the articles were good and cited lots of sources and showed plenty of independent coverage, then I would probably leave them alone. There are lots of similar articles which I have not nominated because the articles have given at least one or two references, or have shown a level of achievement (eg playing and scoring goals in European ties). The BBC source you are citing everywhere now itself states that the league was semi-professional until recent years. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this source says there is a long history of professionalism.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very strong Keep, this nomination just shows how moronic Jmorrison230582's crusade against Irish footballers has become. There is an ongoing discussion with regards this issue here and it would have been advisable to sort it out there especially as this player in the same league recently passed an AfD and there was almost unanimous keep !votes of the Tony Moore AfD which is almost identical to this situation where you have league and cup winners and U-21 internationals all up for AfD!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil. Coleman was going to be deleted at AfD until you pestered the closing admin into keeping. Frankly I don't understand the logic behind the Tony Moore afd result. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pestered" is an interesting description for provided evidence requested!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom; non-notable players who fail WP:ATHLETE. The discussion you have directed us to Vintagekits seems to conclude that the LoI is NOT fully pro. GiantSnowman 11:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply, no it doesnt! Anyone for an embarassing flip-flop?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kinsella meets WP:N with significant news coverage, including this feature . Bulking different people like this isn't a good idea; each one is different. No prejudice on relisting. Nfitz (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all significant and notable league.Eldumpo (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it is unhelpful to bundle individual players into 1 AfD - these Irish players should be re-listed separately (or preferably not at all).Eldumpo (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all no indication of notability; fails WP:ATHLETE over prof status. Is it just me or is wikipedia being overrun with frivolous sports bio articles. It is in danger of turning into a directory of every man who has kicked a ball around a field while anyone was watching--AssegaiAli (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They all fail WP:ATHLETE as they have never competed at a professioanl level, and a few quick Google searches don't appear to produce enough online sources to establish their notability in any other way. Bettia   (bring on the trumpets!)  14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn McNally and Tuite as references found for them playing in what appear to be more notable matches at European and international level. They arguably still fail the WP:ATHLETE guideline but probably pass WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as they fail the criteria set for sportspeople at WP:ATH as they have not played in a fully-professional league or competition. LoI is not fully-professional. Articles also fail general notability guidlines due to a lack of non-trivial secondary sources. --Jimbo[online] 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, what proof have you got that Sligo Rovers and the league wasnt professional back when Patton was playing?--Vintagekits (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The same BBC Sport report from June 2009 you have been using elsewhere,  It's a common complaint across a league that over the past several years transformed itself from a semi-professional league to a fully professional one. This article (written December 2007) states that there are six fully professional clubs in the League of Ireland, when the top division had 12 clubs. The article was talking about the proposal to make an all-Ireland fully professional league, the implication being that the existing league was not fully pro. Or this article from World Soccer, which states: A few years ago the aim was to have a full-time professional league, but this season only Bohemians, Dundalk, Derry City and Sligo Rovers can be considered full-time, while Cork and St Patrick's Athletic will have a mix of professionals and part-timers. Again, implying that the league has never been fully professional. It aimed to be, but the financial problems prevented this. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My reading of it doesnt impy anything of the sort! In fact this source outlines Rovers where fully professional back in the 1960's.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If only for reference purposes, these players took part in one of the oldest leagues in Europe, regardless of whether it was pro or not, dont forget all leagues were at one time amature, should we delete references to Dixie Dean for example.--Centre Mid[online] 13:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So by that reasoning, players from the West Midlands (Regional) League, formed in 1889, should have articles......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sligo Rovers have one of the longest histories of being professional in the League of Ireland so his point is valid.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Players from the West Midlands (Regional) League, formed in 1889, should indeed be kept from the period when it was the top league in the country; however I wasn't aware that it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Patton appears in his club's hall of fame, which probably passes WP:N. Jhealy (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Appearing in your own club's Hall Of Fame does not confer notability.--79.70.181.5 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, if you clubs it the longest running professional club in its country with national league and cup titles as well as numberous European appearances then it does.


 * Keep 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. No offense like. Dahamsta (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment as simple as that; if it is not big enough to be professionsal then it doesn't meet noteworthy status. Players in most countries are therefore disadvantaged but that's just the way it goes. Articles are not a right for sportsmen generally-they must achieve something notable first rather than get an article in case they do.--AssegaiAli (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, your reasoning seems to be all over the place. First you say you dont want frivolous sports bio articles, then you state Sports columns.........are not signs of objective noteworthiness - not sure where else sportsmen are supposed to procure a media outlet! and then you state football newspaper articles as indications of notability. I think Dizzee Rascal had it right. What exactly do you consider a football had to do to become notable?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (all) certainly meets WP:ATHLETE criteria in its intentions. There is no necessity for LoI to be professional for these athletes to be considered notable, they certainly played at the highest national level, which is the clear intention behind the guideline. RashersTierney (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They certainly do not meet WP:ATHLETE, which states "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". They do not play at a fully professional level, because the LOI is not fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  15:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your selective quote is 'unfortunate'. The guideline in question goes on "...or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." The intention of the guideline is clearly based on the assumption that the highest level of all league sports is 'professional', which for many countries is the case, but not always so, as with League of Ireland at some point in its history. It was still the highest level at which the sport was played in Ireland which certainly meets any notability requirements in keeping with the spirit of WP:ATHLETE. The players in question did so at the highest level possible short of emigrating. The guidelines are just that, not laws to be parsed to the overall detriment of the project. The idea that an amateur athlete might qualify as notable while a semi-professional might not, simply because  their sport is considered 'league' or not is nonsense, and to take that narrow meaning is just petty Wikilawyering. RashersTierney (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My "selective" quote is not unfortunate. The second part of the sentence is clearly irrelevant, because this is a league sport. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But the LoI is a league sports, so the arguement of "competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport" falls down there. --Jimbo[online] 16:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By that criterion the article on James Creighton should also be deleted, since US baseball was generally amateur when he played, though organised in a league . Please try to see the intentions behind the guidelines. Perhaps the articles should be deleted, but certainly not for the reason given here. RashersTierney (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That's totally different. Professional sports/sports leagues didn't really exsist in the 1800's, even in football. --Jimbo[online] 16:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria in WP:ATHLETE are obviously too crude to determine notability on their own. Should every article in Wikipedia about a 'league' athlete who was not professional be deleted for that reason alone? Of course not, but thats the proposition here. What about GAA athletes, they play 'league' but are not professional. Try proposing their mass deletion and see how far you get. RashersTierney (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That argument isn't valid. Would a player who reached the highest level in Northern Ireland, Luxembourg or Malta be notable purely because they had reached the highest level in that country? I don't think so, you have to demonstrate a professional level of achievement. There are many ways to do this, as hundreds of Irish players have done by playing in fully professional leagues, or reaching full international status, or competing for an Irish professional club against other professional clubs in European competition. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Playing LoI as an amateur or semi-pro. may not in itself be 'proof' of notability, but not having played in a professional league is not sufficient for a mass deletion of articles. You must have some reservations in this regard having removed two articles from the initial list. Had the proposal been more broadly framed re. notability, and each article individually examined I would not be so concerned. The 'professionalism' test is too crude to be applied so bluntly. So far I've heard no convincing argument for the guideline above to be interpreted so narrowly and simultaneously applied to so many pages.  Is the project so stuck for bandwidth? RashersTierney (talk) 23:35, 12 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.