Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niall Walsh (Irish footballer)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The vast amount of hand-waving and incivility in this AfD by those seeking to keep the article don't make any difference to the central premise - it doesn't matter about the professional status of the LoI, and it equally doesn't matter about the professional status of Galway, because there's one overriding factor here - Walsh has never played a game in the LoI for Galway. The claims of bias are laughably wrong - if this was a young player for an English professional side who'd never played for them, it would be a clear delete - and I suspect we wouldn't have seen the unseemly procession of comments that pollute this AfD. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Molloy (footballer) - now there's an AfD where there's a genuine discussion to be had. This one? No. As ever, no prejudice to re-creation should he become notable etc. Black Kite 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niall Walsh (Irish footballer)[edit]

Niall Walsh (Irish footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Has not made an appearance yet in a fully-professional league, thus failing notability for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE. Lack of non-trivial secondary sources also fail WP:N and WP:V. International youth football does not confer notability either. --Jimbo[online] 13:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP The LOI is as professional a league as you're going to get in a country like Ireland. The continuing attacks on LOI players via these deletion requests demonstrate a level of ignorance or just plain stupidity on the part of the idiots that keep filing them that's frankly astounding. Get a life, muppets. Dahamsta (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's hardly an attack on LoI players as players from all sorts of leagues have been nominated. I'd also like to point you in the direction of WP:CIVILITY. --Jimbo[online] 09:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable. Fails WP:ATHLETE and the general notability requirement of coverage of the article's subject in independent reliable sources. All that exists are team listings or brief mentions of the type 'Walsh did X'. Nuttah (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may not be an attack but it does demontrate an certain level of ignorance about the game.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The player and league are notable; all clubs in this league pay their players. I don't understand this little campaign to delete all these articles of Irish top-level players. There's too much reference in these debates to ATH, which is not a policy, and not enough use of common-sense and reasonableness. Jhealy (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not policy; but it is a "notability guideline...[a] generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." GiantSnowman 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vast majority of references are trivial; match reports where he gets a surname mentioned, or squad profiles. Not enough to meet WP:N in my eyes. GiantSnowman 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well thankfully your eyes (eyes which is blinded by your interpretation of ATHLETE) havent formed the concensus on recent AfD's - and there is a growing concensus that that guideline is so flawed as to be ignored. Also your opinion on this issue seems to have flip flopped dependant the mode of your cronies at the FOOTY Project.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This player plays for a notable team in a notable league, he has been in two under age Irish international sides. There are vast amounts of sources on him and I feel his page meets wikipedia's criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80SRFC80 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because the league is notable, it doesn't mean a player playing in it is! On your rationale, every plumber and office worker playing in the Bristol Downs Football League on a Sunday morning would be notable...GiantSnowman 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguments are becoming more and more spurious. If the Bristol League was the top division in the country then you would have a point - but it isnt and you dont.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of their position on the pyramid, both league aren't fully-professional. GiantSnowman 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our difference is that I do give regard to the leagues position in the pyramid.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plays for a professional club at the highest level of Irish club football. 8lgm (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8lgm, I don't believe that his club is professional - are you sure about that? --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, to be blunt - FUCK WP:ATHLETE. Its a deeply flawed policy and anyway is trumped by WP:BIO and WP:N. Most of these players have turned down the opportunity to play for third and fourth rung clubs in England (which you consider automatically notable) in preference of staying the FAI Premier Division - which is a far more notable league!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a sense, Vintagekits, we agree. ATHLETE just confers automatic notability. I say it doesn't apply here, you say it's an irrelevance, so let's focus on WP:N. We need multiple references in RS, which we have, but they're all trivial - hence not [yet?] notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references provided are far superior then 90% provided for other players in the English 3rd and 4th level. My opinion and your opinion of trivial is obviously different!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cmon VK, you've been around long enough not to argue WP:OTHERSTUFF at an AfD. Which of the RS references include non-trivial mentions of the subject? I'll play fair - for "multiple", I'd settle for 2. Happy to change to Keep - just demonstrate to me it passes WP:N. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel its a fair comparison when you you !vote automatically to "keep" someone who came on for five minutes in a game for Aldershot Town! I am happy with the validity of the multiple sources provided in the article.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's stay on topic, which is this article and not any other. In this article, I am not disputing the validity of the sources - they are valid. But which of them includes mention of Niall Walsh that is not trivial? It'd need 2 for my generous interpretation of WP:N. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am on topic. The topic is notability of footballers. I've already pointed out that I am happy with the sources provided and thankfully its not your "interpretation of WP:N" that counts - it would seem that the concensus would also agree.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Per current precident. Passes WP:BIO and WP:N which is superior to the deeply WP:ATHLETE. International footballer and playing in the Irish premier division which is notable.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, he is NOT an international player. He has youth caps for Ireland, that's different. And once again, just because the league is notable, it doesn't mean a player playing in it is! GiantSnowman 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - haven't found a non-trivial reliable source yet. Studerby (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails ATHLETE, so needs to pass WP:N, and, as Studerby says, all the presented references are trivial. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence provided that he has actually played for Galway United in a competitive match, which would make the League of Ireland status debate irrelevant. He isn't even listed on the Irish Times' squad list for that club. This strikes me as being similar to any player with a British club who hasn't yet made a senior appearance, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Galbraith (footballer). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No he isn't, because they have both played multiple times in the LOI and consequently received significant coverage in the media. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.galwayunitedfc.ie/menu-items/galway-united-player-statistics.html shows that's he's played in the League Cup this season. 8lgm (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, having not played to required level per ATHLETE or achieved anything special besides. I don't see anything enough to convince me of WP:GNG, it is all general clutter as any football player gets anywhere, no more than I got when I was a lad (less in fact - and there was no internet spewing machine then). Not a single article referenced is about Niall Walsh and I don't see anything with general searches. Irish League Cup doesn't do it for me I'm afraid, as it steps down too far, and this guy hasn't played anything other than that. I'm happy to be convinced that LoI may be as or more notable than England level 4 (against ATHLETE) but as he hasn't yet played, delete and recreate if and when.--ClubOranjeT 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:N as the sources provided in the article only consist of a few squad lists and brief mentions in match reports (this guideline requires more than a trivial mention, even if the subject isn't the main topic of the source), fails WP:BIO as he has not acheived anything of note, and fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully professional level. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources have been provided, he plays in a notable league for a notable team and I beleive that meets Wikipedia's criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80SRFC80 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • I have struck this comment out as this editor has already voted in this discussion. GiantSnowman 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the sources provided "address the subject directly in detail" as required by the general notability guideline and the coverage is far, far from substiantial, the vast majority of the impressive-looking sources provide mere trivial mentions of the subject once you look beneath the veneer of shiny inline citations. Subject also fails WP:ATHLETE as the LOI is not fully pro - but even if it was, he hasn't even played in it! I am concerned at the flurry of seeming SPAs, and hope that the closing admin looks thoroughly at the facts, the arguments raised and the contributors who argued them. – Toon 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone who plays in the top division in their country should be notable and there seems to be a number of non-trivial sources. ATHLETE is a ridiculous policy. BigDom (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Except he doesn't seem to have played in the top division in his country, and ridiculous or not, ATHLETE is current policy, and while the top division theory might be fine for some countries, would you really apply it for American Samoa Tonga and Cook Islands--ClubOranjeT 01:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, actually it not a policy its a guideline - and one that is superceeded by WP:N and WP:BIO.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete: After reading the sources thoroughly, he has not played in the league so have changed my Keep to Delete. Point about ATHLETE being ridiculous still stands though. Big Dom 10:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has played in the League Cup and on numberous occasions for Ireland youth team which passes WP:N.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, a player playing will affect WP:ATHLETE, not WP:N. WP:N deals with media coverage. As someone who has argued that this player meets WP:N, I'd have thought you would have known the difference between the two...GiantSnowman 11:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the majority of posters here whor are off the opinion that Niall Walsh (and any of his contempories) pass all the required guidlines Centre mid (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing what required guidelines? Even the people saying 'keep' are admitting he fails WP:ATHLETE...he also fails WP:N diue to lack of direct & reliable sources about him. GiantSnowman 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you are just making stuff up! The stench of desperation in here is palpable!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable player in a notable top-level league Eldumpo (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly is he notable? - you can't just say "notable player" willy-nilly, thinking that's enough. GiantSnowman 14:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way that users such as yourself simply say 'delete per nom, non-notable? :) 8lgm (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good - although I only say that when the nominator has specified in their nomination exactly why an article isn't notable...GiantSnowman 21:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATA#Arguments without arguments suggests that you should not just state 'per nom' in the reason, but of course it's not policy! Eldumpo (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always say "per nom; fails [insert link to WP:ATHLETE or WP:N]", but that's besides the point - you still haven't explained why you think he is notable...GiantSnowman 21:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have lost the ability to read or decipher then its clear what his reason is. He considers him notable for playing in a top level national league!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, pack it in. You're doing the man's page no favours by gobshiteing all over the shop. Starting like you do stops reasoned discussion. Please let people say their piece in peace. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering someone notable for playing in a top level national league is only valid if that someone has _actually played_ in said top level national league.--ClubOranjeT 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking through the news and statistics sections of Galway United's site it becomes clear that Walsh is currently only on the fringes of the first team, and mentions of him tend to the trivial. At this point in time third party coverage is not significant. Youth internationals rarely result in significant coverage for an individual. In my searches I found nothing to suggest that this player is an exception in that regard; he did not play in the recent under-19 European championships. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To say there's no newS about him on the website doesn't mean he's not notable. Corry Evans is yet to make any appearance for Manchester United and has only appeared in youth tournaments and in the reserve team for United and his page was never deleted. The chances are that Corry will breakthrough and so it makes sense to keep his page doesn't it? So it must be the same for Niall Walsh. You cannot delete a page and keep another page that have the exact same written in the pages. If Niall was to make an appearance next week would the page be then kept? I would think so. It doesn't make sense to delete a page for someone who is on the fringes, if he is on a professional contract and is in the first team then he does make it under WP:N, which is enough to keep a page.--Leagueofireland (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Corry Evans is an international player; Niall Walsh certainly isn't. GiantSnowman 16:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop being so aggressive towards posters. Isnt it enough that you canvassed !votes for this AfD without badgering those you didnt canvas. Actually Walsh is an Irish international - he has played at under 15, 18 and 19's level for his country.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was that aggressive? - all I did was state the facts! And Walsh isn't a full international player - Evans is - and youth caps do not confer notability. GiantSnowman 16:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Says who? Numberous under age cap and playing for a top division team passes WP:N in my book - and thankfully in the majority of others also!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:10, 28 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Niall_Walsh_(Irish_footballer)&oldid=1078924635"