Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Val Daly


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Val Daly

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

Doubtful notability (Google search turned up sporadic third-party sources), and article consists almost entirely of badly-written and unsourced POV. No effort has been made to improve it in the time since it was first posted. sixty nine  • speak, I say •  06:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE (see here) though it needs drastic improvement and fixing to pass WP:NPOV. D ARTH P ANDA duel 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete  In it's current form it doesn't pass WP:VER or WP:NPOV. Per DarthPanda the subject appears to pass BIO, so absolutely no prejudice to recreation if it is resubmitted (or reworked) with these issues addressed. Guliolopez (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Better to keep and improve than to delete, as a previous deletion may dishearten another page creator. D ARTH P ANDA duel 19:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure I agree. We can really only comment on the notability/VER/worthiness of the current content. And, per your own comment, the current content doesn't pass the relevant guidelines. (There isn't a single source validating claims made - could be hoax for all I know.) On the point that "a delete may dissuade possible recreators". I'm not sure that's really a problem we should be concerning ourselves with. If the deletion log notes "no bias to recreation if properly sourced", then it shouldn't be an issue. That said, if you feel like fixing the issues I'll happily change my vote. But right now (given the VER issues) it's still "delete". Guliolopez (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. To quote WP:DEL, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Therefore, this page should be kept and fixed. D ARTH P ANDA duel 22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. OK. I have removed all the inappropriate commentary and NPOV chatter and weasel words about how "he is regarded as a great footballer", etc. As well as the (frankly) irrelevant stuff about what managers he played under, and the equally inappropriate commentary and related nonsense about various periods representing "famine and underachievement", "bruising encounters", etc. All that remains therefore is that "he was a football player who won several championships and an All Star". Based on these changes I have struck out my "delete vote" - but still can't recommend a keep. Because there isn't a single supporting cite. Not a one. Guliolopez (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator themselves already claimed "Google search turned up sporadic third-party sources" In other words there is chance of improvement. I basically agree with Darth Panda, guidelines and policy generally support the view that "bad in its current state" is not a valid reason for deletion. I suggest we drop the entry off at a relevant project and give it a few more weeks to improve. - Mgm|(talk) 20:12, 3 November 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.