Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sammy Hughes (footballer)

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The result was Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Hughes (footballer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this source shows he was topscorer in the Irish league in three different seasons for Glentoran, enough for me. Giant Snowman 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would being Glentoran's third-highest ever goalscorer and being chosen for the Northern Irish FA tour of America and Canada in 1953 (as well as being the top scorer in the Northern Irish league in three seasons, as pointed out above) be enough to show notability? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would say so! Giant Snowman 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia with no reliable sources and which haven't been deleted;
- there is no doubt that the player in question is notable, having been named as an Ulster Footballer of the Year (this is referenced);
- there is no question of anything libellous being included in the article;
- there is no reason to query the accuracy of any of the information provided;
- "reliable sources" have been provided for much of the information in the article - so, even, if some material is based on an "unreliable source", there is still merit in retaining the article, even if some material is to be removed;
- finally, a request for additional sources is included at the top of the article, so it seems premature to be deleting it. Mooretwin (talk) 10:17, 2 October 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.