- 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. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fran Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Procedural nomination, was previously proposed for deletion by myself with the rationale "Has only made appearances in a semi-professional league, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE". The PROD has been contested on the basis of him playing in the UEFA Cup - unfortunately, the source supplied requires a ten Euro subscription to view it and I can't find any other sources to verify this. Bettia (rawr!) 12:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (rawr!) 12:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Irregardless of his UEFA Cup appearance, we reached consensus a long time ago that League of Ireland players were notable. Nfitz (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The agreement on LOI players was that the general WP:BIO criteria had precedence over WP:ATHLETE. (IE: A player article wouldn't be delete on the grounds of "LOI = semi-pro" if the player already met WP:BIO for notability/significant sources/etc.) This article fails "significant sources" however. As well as issues with WP:VER. A few Google searches to validate his espoused tenure at Rovers Longford or St. Pats returns only this article. And therefore "significant coverage" appears to fail. (In short, would need to pass the basic WP:BIO criteria before WP:ATHLETE criteria comes into question. Doesn't even meet basic criteria. So delete). Guliolopez (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That for LOI the agreement that if they meet WP:BIO that it takes precedence over WP:ATHLETE not only doesn't match my recollection - it makes absolutely no sense whatsover as WP:BIO always trumps WP:ATHLETE!!! Nfitz (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the exclamation marks. They really helped. Though not with my confusion. While I appreciate that my statement mightn't have been 100% clear (and I may have been referring to another AfD precedent conversation to the one you mentioned), surely what you've just said is equally a contradiction. Namely, because WP:BIO always trumps WP:ATHLETE, then surely the core of my delete point is therefore valid: That no coverage and no verifiable sources would suggest a delete. Further, can you point me to the CON agreement that states that ALL LoI players are automatically notable? Irrespective of sources/coverage/etc? Coz I'd love to read that. Guliolopez (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While WP:BIO always trumps WP:ATHLETE for retention (for example, Ghandi has an article, even though he fails WP:ATHLETE, convention has long been (rightly or wrongly) that if minimum standards are met, then articles are created for players that meet WP:ATHLETE, even if they seem to fail WP:BIO. Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As Guilolopez has already demonstrated, this guy fails WP:BIO. Bettia (rawr!) 09:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While WP:BIO always trumps WP:ATHLETE for retention (for example, Ghandi has an article, even though he fails WP:ATHLETE, convention has long been (rightly or wrongly) that if minimum standards are met, then articles are created for players that meet WP:ATHLETE, even if they seem to fail WP:BIO. Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the exclamation marks. They really helped. Though not with my confusion. While I appreciate that my statement mightn't have been 100% clear (and I may have been referring to another AfD precedent conversation to the one you mentioned), surely what you've just said is equally a contradiction. Namely, because WP:BIO always trumps WP:ATHLETE, then surely the core of my delete point is therefore valid: That no coverage and no verifiable sources would suggest a delete. Further, can you point me to the CON agreement that states that ALL LoI players are automatically notable? Irrespective of sources/coverage/etc? Coz I'd love to read that. Guliolopez (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That for LOI the agreement that if they meet WP:BIO that it takes precedence over WP:ATHLETE not only doesn't match my recollection - it makes absolutely no sense whatsover as WP:BIO always trumps WP:ATHLETE!!! Nfitz (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played in a fully professional league. It should also be noted that the consensus Nfitz refers to simply does not exist. Results of AfD discussions on LOI players have been varied - some kept, some deleted, but there is certainly no agreement on the subject - indeed they all fail WP:ATHLETE as it stands, so the presumption should still be delete. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD deletes are really hard to use as precedent, as many are just seen by the same group of pro-deletion AfD junkie. However in the debate at WP:FOOTY not one person, not even yourself, put out a position that such articles should be deleted. Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 18:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. RMHED (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.