Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Lynch (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. The delete !votes generally appeal to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which consensus appears to say doesn't apply as Lynch is (whether he likes it or not) a public figure due to his past career in football. In addition, several keep !votes have found sources to show that there is in-depth coverage of Lynch and his career. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 07:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sean Lynch (footballer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sean Lynch, the article's subject has requested deletion, both on-wiki and via OTRS. While Lynch formally meets the notability criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL, having played in a fully professional league, in-depth coverage is scarce, with sources largely not discussing Lynch in any detail. Among the eight cited references, two are routine game coverage cited for trivia, one is a soccer club website (which isn't reliable by Wikipedia's standards and is 404, too), another is an interview almost exclusively reporting Lynch's words, three are reports on clubs letting players (including Lynch) go which cover Lynch merely as part of a group, and the last one, while reporting on him being hired by a club, also notes how he rarely played. That's a rather poor showing from a WP:GNG point of view. Since Lynch isn't a public figure any more, it could be argued that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Huon (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Delete I've been following Sean's request and its heartfelt, and the article is marginal and poorly sourced enough to be a case of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Whatever his reason for just wanting to disappear, it's of vastly more importance to him than this project. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: I saw Sean play in the former Div 2, usually in defeats for my team; wishing him well for the future. As to notability, I see nothing in his past career other than routine coverage, and no reason not to accede to his request (maybe even to reach a snow close?) AllyD (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Although they are not used as references in the article, there are several news stories specifically concerning this player, including this and this from the BBC and this from the Daily Record. If you Google Sean Lynch, there are hundreds of football-related links, so it's not as if deleting this article will hide anything. Furthermore, I can't see how WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE can possibly apply here, as he clearly isn't a "non-public figure" – he's played several matches in the top division of a fully-professional league, and has also been capped at youth level and was in the squad for the 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup (and played in one of the games). He's played several times in front of five-figure crowds, so is a public figure. Number   5  7  10:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick t c s 12:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - If the subject has verified his identity to OTRS satisfaction, has properly requested deletion of the article, and is largely non-notable apart from meeting WP:NFOOTY, then I have no problem honoring WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. — Jkudlick t c s 12:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick t c s 12:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - is clearly notable and had a sizeable career, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't really apply - furthermore as Number 57 says it's pointless anyway, there's hundreds of articles about him anyway. GiantSnowman 13:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Aside from having a six year career in which he made well over 100 league appearance, clearly meeting WP:NFOOTY, there a re numerous articles which provide significant detail on the player. In addition to the three listed above, a quick google search throws up these other articles:
 * Lengthy interview from his time at Airdrie.
 * This article including quotes from Lynch on his hopes for a contract at St Mirren from a major newspaper.
 * a short article indicating that as well as his club career he was also capped at junior level for Scotland.
 * These six articles, plus the level at which the player enjoyed his career indicate both a subject specific and general notability guideline pass. Furthermore, although match reporting is by consensus insufficient coverage to support notability on its own, in addition to the above, there are literally hundreds of match reports available on line in which the exploits of the player are mentioned and which could be used judiciously to provide a more detailed summation of his career. Fenix down (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per above - Had this been someone who was quite frankly unknown and had the article been poorly sourced I probably would've gone with delete but as noted above his career's spanned for 6 years and the sources aren't that bad, I've found a few news sources here, and a few book sources here - Admittingly they're not perfect but notability's certainly there and so at this point I don't think BLPREQUEST or whatever it is applies now. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as above, plus in addition Sean is featured in any number of computer games, and other media websites. While I agree that wikipedia shouldn't merely be a mirror of other website information, I would find it strange that we would be subject to removal of publicly available information. Koncorde (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep If you do a Google search, you find many references to his career online, so deleting this article will not significantly reduce his Digital footprint. JMHamo (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep meets notability criteria, and reason stated at User talk:Seanlynchpin is "hampering my current search for a new career" but there's nothing in article to suggest that subject would have arrived at that conclusion himself; I'd question motivation of person who suggested the existence of this article would. The only thing I can think of is confusion with another person of same name, but deletion of this article would most likely add to that confusion. Peter James (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets the appropriate standard of notability. His own opinion on the matter is irrelevant to Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete If he says that he doesn't like it, then remove it. He is not a high profile person, the encyclopedia doesn't need this article. Just because we can do something, does not mean that we have to. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't delete articles just because they don't like it, If we followed that request I'd imagine they'd be no articles here!, This is an encyclopedia and his article's encycloepdic and well cited so there's no valid reason to delete. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:IAR. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. I think it would set a dangerous precedent if people can come on and just request deletion for no good reason (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Where do you draw the line in terms of someone requesting deletion? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject clearly meets NFOOTY, and there is plenty of reliable secondary coverage, as shown by Davey2010 and Number57. Also, the !vote of User:MurderByDeadcopy appears to be trying to make a point, which I would strongly advise against. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, not cool. Look, we're obviously on different sides but MurderByDeadcopy is in no way engaging in disruptive behaviour by expressing his !vote in this manner. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, as see above. Just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (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.