Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Healy (hurler)

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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Healy (hurler)[edit]

Non-notable individual, no reliable secondary sources about the individual, does not meet WP:ATHLETE exception to WP:N. 2008Olympian^chitchat 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Definately meets WP:ATHLETE, no sources is not a valid reason to delete an article, should be tagged as unreferenced. It appears the nominator has nominated a collection of Irish related articles with little knowledge of the sports in general. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask that this nom be withdrawn and the article be tagged with {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} as appropriate instead. I can find no reason in WP:DEL for this page to be nominated. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jenuk, but because of BLP requirements, it needs to be rewritten with some sources very soon. And could all these hurling AfDs not have been grouped?! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article definitely needs some references, but independent of this the subject does meet WP:N. FlyingToaster 21:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:GAA guidelines ,WP:ATH and the above Gnevin (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable under WP:ATH. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is wholly unreferenced, so its claims to notability is not supported by any reference, and wikipedia has no business publishing wholly unreferenced biographies of living people (see WP:BLP). No prejudice to recreating this articles at a future date if they are referenced to establish notability and to demonstrate that the person concerned actually exists. As Jimmy Wales wrote, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."" It's time to stop pussyfooting around this one and simply delete BLP articles which mock wikipedia's core policies by failing to even provide a reference for the subject's existence, let alone evidence to support the assertion of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can find nothing in WP:BLP#Deletion to back up your delete argument other than deletion should be used as a last resort. It certainly hasn't got to last resort stage yet. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply If references have not been added by the time the AFD closes, then I think we are at the last resort stage. WP:BLP#Deletion says "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." Note that WP:BLP#Deletion appears to primarily concern summary deletion (via WP:PROD or [[WP:CSD]), and that I am not proposing deleting the page as an initial step, followed by discussion". We are having that discussion here, and if the article is referenced by the time this AFD is closed 6 days from now, then my objections will clearly be superseded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Refs found Gnevin (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changing my !vote). Refs added demonstrate that the subject verifiably meets WP:ATHLETE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable athlete who has played at the highest level of his sport. He is most certainly notable at a national level. Derry Boi (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2009 (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.