Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coleman

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. While it is a very close debate, in reviewing the arguments I feel that the statements made by User:Struway2 and User:TerriersFan carry the most weight. Sources have been found, including several that mention Coleman in more than a passing manner; however, each of these, without exception, speak only to the pending transfer to Everton, not to any actual aspect of his football playing. If Coleman is notable, he is notable for being a football player, not for being a subject of a run-of-the-mill transfer. WP:ATHLETE does clearly state that a subject must play at the highest professional level of a sport to be considered notable. Following the transfer to Everton and his first appearance there, then there should be no problem with this. Currently, this is not the case, and there are not enough reliable sources that provide evidence of his notability to justify an article at this time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Coleman[edit]

Player fails WP:ATHLETE; he has never played in a fully-pro league (League of Ireland is only semi-pro) and youth caps do not give notability. Originally a PROD which was a removed by an IP user, with no reason given. Giant Snowman 13:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn until he plays a professional match. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He may fail WP:Athlete, but that is itself a secondary criteron. The basic criterion under WP:BIO is coverage in reliable, published secondary sources. Coleman has 20 google news hits in the last month alone, and there's a fair degree of coverage on other sites. Cool3 (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced by this. A quick flick through the links revealed a bunch of non RS, passing references to him and local parochial coverage. It looks like he will be notable; the article can run then. --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few of the more reliable sources, including some mentions that are certainly more than trivial. As the discussion is indicating, this is certainly a borderline case, but there's enough coverage out there in reliable sources to write a workable article, and I think he passes WP:BIO.

"Sligo star Coleman relishing the prospect of cross-channel switch". Irish Independent. October 20, 2008.. That's three paragraphs in the most read paper in Ireland, labeling him "one of the Eircom League's most prodigious young talents".
Thirteen mentions in the Irish Times, most just in passing, but that's still 13 separate mentions in Ireland's newspaper of record over the last two years.
Coverage also extends beyond Ireland to the BBC (a passing mention), the Birmingham Post, Scottish Fitba, and several others. Cool3 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep--I am moderately convinced by the coverage provided. ~~Weak delete~~. Two good points are made--other coverage can establish notability too, but Dweller is correct in saying these references are mostly passing mentions, longer mentions are on blogs. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - League of Ireland may be semi pro, but it is that nation's top level league. Quick search shows that almost all LOI players have articles. He has a professional contract with Everton, and under-21 caps. Technically he might fail WP:Athlete but seems a bit picky. Parslad (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other players have articles doesn't mean that this player should. I have in fact just PRODded about half a dozen LoI players. Giant Snowman 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you ought to have waited for this result of this discussion before PRODding other articles? Parslad (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He may fail WP:ATHLETE, but cool3's news results would seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO, which would override that. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most newspaper hits for this players are trivial, and simply mention his transfer. Giant Snowman 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While most of the hits do discuss his transfer, I don't think that's a problem. If a variety of reliable sources are writing about his transfer, that makes him notable, and as I tried to prove earlier, many of the references are not trivial. Several of them devote a couple of paragraphs to him. Sure, there's nothing here like a twenty page profile in the NY Times magazine, but there's enough to establish notability. Cool3 (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no non-trivial third party references about this fellow. – Pee Jay 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no appearances, no notability; if he is expected to be notable as a footballer, then he should first play some competitive football. --Angelo (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has made 55 appearances for Sligo Rovers. It may not be Serie A, but it is the top level league in Ireland. Parslad (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems notable enough. Irishflowers (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As to general notability, the google news hits are half non-RS and the rest just mention his transfer, the Irish Independent para is general spacefilling football gossip, and the Irish Times mentions are just that – mentions of his name in team sheets and match reports. His transfer is covered, but only to the extent of reporting it happened; the BBC covers transfers in similar detail at much lower levels of English football, e.g. this report of Eastbourne Borough, a semi-pro team playing in the fifth tier, signing a player whose only competitive experience was at even lower levels. Footnote 6 at WP:BIO#Basic criteria says Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. I haven't yet seen coverage of Mr Coleman that goes beyond the trivial, so in my view he fails WP:BIO. And as he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, by never having played in a fully-professional league, I have to go with delete. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet. I mean why not, right?" [1] Jimbo Wales. There's enough content out there in quite reliable sources, Irish Times, Irish Independent, etc. to write a "good neutral biography", and some of the cites do discuss Coleman in reasonable detail. It's one thing to oppose a non-notable topic because the non-notability results in a dearth of usable sources. When, however, there are enough reliable sources to write the article, what's the harm? Cool3 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not by nature a deleter, but I'm keen on AfDs being decided on the basis of current policy. This particular article is better than most articles on LOI players in that it does contain sources (I added one myself): mostly they run along the lines of XXX is a footballer who plays for YYY F.C. with no sources at all, and if I was that way inclined I'd PROD the lot of them. If the closing admin believes that the player does pass WP:BIO, then fair enough; I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Struway2 summed it up pretty well. Not yet made the grade notability wise only standard web coverage for any typical fairly non-notable person. Pretty poor if a few google hits make someone notable. I typed in a couple of random made-up-on-the-spot names and got over 1200 hits on each, including so-called non-trivial coverage articles - and they are just ordinary people. The sooner people realise that the internet has bucketloads about everyone on the planet and a ghit or twelve doesn't make one notable, the better WP will be as an encyclopedia. Recreate if and when. --ClubOranje^T 11:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not yet played at a fully professional level. Furthermore, WP:N states that media coverage only presumes notability, it doesn't guarantee it. What has this player done to make him notable? And how is his notabliity established in the sources given? The quality of the sources should be the most important criterion here, not the quantity. This article can be recreated if and when he makes his professional debut, but until then he doesn't make the grade. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm new to AfD discussions and am a little confused by an (apparent) lack of consistency. In this recent discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Gardner (curler) the consensus was overwhelming that this curler meets both WP:athlete and WP:N despite the fact that he may only have played in tournaments where prize money was on offer, with no evidence he had actually won any. Seamus Coleman has played competitive football in a top level national league of an important footballing nation and now has a professional contract with one of the largest teams in Europe AND has Under-21 caps AND has significant coverage in Irish newspapers and some from the UK and that's less noteworthy than Chris Gardner?? Many of the players in the LOI are on full time, professional contracts. I understand that it is not a fully professional league but the fact that it is a top level league of a significant country and not the fifth or sixth level of e.g. England or a larger country surely allows a degree of flexibility over the precise definition of WP:Athlete? As for the comments that he fails WP:N I wonder if the reports had been in the largest circulation newspapers of the USA or England would there be doubt over WP:N? Sorry if I'm well wide of the mark here, but it is a little confusing. Parslad (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are inconsistent :-) The result of borderline ones often seem to depend on the assertiveness of interested participants. FWIW, I think the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Gardner (curler) was wrong: the article contains no sources at all and the player had never participated at the highest level, thus IMO failing WP:ATHLETE. That's by the by. As long as WP:ATHLETE specifies playing in a fully-pro league, that's what we have to go by for players of professional team sports. The cut-off point is arbitrary but clear. The flexibility comes in the interpretation of WP:BIO, in deciding whether the coverage has been of sufficient depth to constitute non-trivial coverage. I'd hope that trivial reports in major English or US newspapers – which some of the google news hits were – wouldn't bear any more weight than similar reports in Irish sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Playing 50+ matches in the highest division of Ireland and a well-publicized move to Everton are enough for me. WP:N trumps WP:ATHLETE. Aecis·(away) ^talk 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why, the league isn't fully-pro? Hundreds of thousands of players play in the top flight of national leagues. This is why the criteria and guidelines, such as WP:ATHLETE are in place. Therefore, I say DELETE. --Jimbo^[online] 09:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of thousands is a tad exaggerated! Flexibility is needed here - if a semi pro team was to be promoted into, for example, the Scottish Premier League (entirely possible) do all the players in that league suddenly fail [WP:Athlete]]? Parslad (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Not all players in the Belarusian Premier League and the Cypriot First Division are fully professional, but does that mean that the players of BATE Borisov and Anorthosis Famagusta, who played in this year's UEFA Champions League, are not notable enough for an article? Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE is subordinate to WP:N. This person has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. He therefore meets WP:N, he is notable enough to merit an article. WP:ATHLETE is not the be-all and end-all. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE due to him not playing at a fully professional level or in a competitive full international. The coverage is about the transfer, not the subject as a player and is not 'substantial coverage'. TerriersFan (talk) 18:54, 26 February 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.