Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McAllister (Irish 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 delete. It is well established that subguidelines do not overule GNG so if there is substantial coverage then this individual is notable even if they do not meet athlete but match reports and their like do not equate to sufficient coverage. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David McAllister (Irish footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE having never played at a fully professional level. No other indications of notability nor could I find significant enough coverage of his football career to meet WP:GNG Dpmuk (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my de-prod. St Patrick's are leading a league in which the majority of teams are professional. If that's good enough for Belgian and Danish players, it's good enough for Irish players. Besides, this player has the distinction of being a season top-scorer for Shelbourne, one of the biggest teams in Ireland. Whilst I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, it stands to reason that if that season is notable, the most notable player of that season is also notable. WFCforLife (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player does not play in a fully-professional league, so the status as the club as being one of the biggest is irrelevant. As WFCforLife notes, the fact that player articles for other leagues exist in contravention to WP:ATHLETE is also not a reason for keeping it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. My observation is that Wikiproject Football actively breaks WP:ATHLETE when determining which leagues are eligible for inclusion, making an argument based on ATHLETE whilst ignoring the GNG null and void. WFCforLife (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few examples of meeting the GNG. He has been the source of significant coverage on separate stories in The Independent, RTE and The Irish Examiner. This is not a comprehensive list, merely a demonstration that he has been the subject of significant coverage on multiple stories. Should this AfD close as keep, I will work these into the article. WFCforLife (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Routine sport coverage - these are all match reports - is not significant coverage; see WP:NTEMP, 2nd paragraph. If you can find a few biographical-type articles on the other hand, that ought satisfy WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a biography would be a stronger claim~~, and I'll have a look later~~. But at the very least, the RTE article provides critical analysis of the event. It is more than routine sports coverage, and the coverage of McAllister in that (and the Independent) is certainly non-trivial. WFCforLife (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In addition to information already in the article (being in the Team of the year, top scorer for the biggest club in Ireland, and a nominee for player of the year) I have already demonstrated how this athlete has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in third party sources. Also, nobody has explained why ATHLETE is pivotal here. To put it another way, nobody has explained why ATHLETE somehow makes the GNG irrelevant. This is only an essay, but it makes a mockery of a cursory "Delete per WP:ATHLETE". Malcolmx15 has correctly made the point that biographies would provide a stronger GNG argument, but nobody has refuted any of the evidence I have provided that he passes the GNG.

To be clear, I'm not bothered about this individual. What does bother me is the arbitrary way that WP:ATHLETE is used as an automatic rationale for deletion, with no consideration whatsoever given to the individual's general notability. Even if the final judgement of this AfD is that this guy does not meet general notability standards, I am looking to generate discussion so as to provide clarity in the future. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale as nominator including the statement that I didn't think the player meets the WP:GNG. If a athlete meets WP:ATHLETE then it is assumed their notable, however the opposite does not hold true, they may be notable even if they don't meet WP:ATHLETE. I stated that they did not meet WP:ATHLETE as I think it's useful to establish that in this sort of discussion. Looking at the sources in more details:

3 of the sources plus the two external links are not independent so can not be used to assess notability.
3 of the sources in the article plus the three raised above are just match reports. This is coverage of the match not the individual and mentions of the individual, are in my opinion completely trivial, in one of the references in the article he's purely mentioned as having played, in another it merely mentions he scored and in the third it mentions that he got a yellow and how he got it. Coverage is of a similar level in those sources mentioned in this discussion.
The final source mentions he's got nominated for an award. The coverage again is trivial - it just mentions he's been nominated, no discussion of him what so ever. The award does not seem to be even close to being of significant prominence that just being nominated was enough to be notable.

Hence I don't think he's been the subject of non-trivial coverage and so does not meet WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the reply. It's that sort of analysis I'm looking for. My hope is to get a clearer idea of what multiple people think a footballer that fails ATHLETE needs to do to pass the GNG. I see this person as potentially above that mark, hence my persistence. But if consensus deems other wise, I'm trying to get a good idea of what the notability threshold would be. WFCforLife (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - May not satisfy [[WP::ATHLETE]], but does satisfy WP:GNG. The articles go beyond cursory mentions and are certainly reliable sources. Zachlipton (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources fail WP:NTEMP and WP:GNG, they are trivial stories and run of the mill reports etc. --Jimbo^[online] 22:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable as well articulated by nominator in detail a couple of entries (unsigned User:Dpmuk) above. Nothing but match report coverage which is "routine sports coverage of trivial nature". Has not achieved anything significant or noteworthy in his field.--ClubOranje^T 11:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody has challenged my assertion that the RTE article (above) is critical analysis of the event. My argument isn't that it's not a match report, but that it (and more importantly its coverage of McAllister) is not routine. The weight of numbers suggest that most people think this article is a good candidate for deletion, and provided the numbers are backed up with strong arguments, I'm happy to accept that. But I do think there needs to be a more discussion on this point. Regards, WFC (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This RTE article? It is simply a routine match report. Critical analysis or not, it does nothing to elevate this game or its participants to encyclopaedic status as part of enduring history. I can pull one of those out of every paper in the country about the local teams, and multiple teams in the bigger cities, from top level to local league stuff.--ClubOranje^T 20:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With respect to meeting general notability guidelines, I do not see that any of the coverage rises beyond typical match reports, and that includes the RTE article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plays in a notable top-level league, a number of sources provided. Eldumpo (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has yet to play at a fully professional level, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. The sources provided seem rather trivial, comprising brief mentions in match reports, a club "newsflash" and sports stories - none of these are sufficient to establish notability. Bettia (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Precedent was set when it was decided to keep David O'Connor (footballer). Both are playing in a top level league that is mainly professional. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are only three professional teams in Ireland, so he fails WP:ATHLETE by a long shot. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for keeping this article. Bettia (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OSE states that you should not base an argument on the principle of "that exists, this should also exist." However, citing valid, relevant arguments from a previous AfD is not a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regards, WFC (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage isn't significant enough to outweigh the clear failure to meet WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2010 (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.