Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark O'Sullivan 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 keep. While he might not meet the parameters of NFOOTY, the wider consensus appears to be that he meets GNG. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark O'Sullivan footballer[edit]

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

Not played in a fully professional league. Echetus Xe 22:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Also a BLPPROD in its current state. Fenix down (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the sources outlined below. Not the most notable footballer, but his career trajectory has received coverage outside of routine match reporting. Happy to accept that this is a rare example of a low level footballer meeting GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While WP:NFOOTBALL does have issues with top-flight footballers in the League of Ireland Premier Division, (where some individual players may not be fully professional), the subject in this case objectively meets WP:GNG. The subject has been covered in various reliable sources, where that coverage has been non-trivial. So, in honesty, I'm unclear on the basis on which it is stated that GNG is not demonstrated. For example: Independent News & Media, The Journal,Sun Newspaper Group, etc. In short - article needs better/more sources? Absolutely! Subject fails WP:NFOOTY? Maybe. Subject fails WP:GNG? Nope! Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets ignore the fact that the news hits link is completely useless as most of them seem to refer to a hurler (or in some instances Ronnie O'Sullivan) rather than the footballer, and those that do include a large number of routine match reports, the links you provide are hardly GNG:

Independent News & Media - most of this article is not about the player, and not even about football. The element that is is basically just about his transfer between clubs with a few brief playing career facts.
The Journal - again is just a routine transfer report with a quote from his manager spouting the usual platitudes mangers do when a player leaves the club. There is essentially no real journalism here that could allow this article to be deemed significant coverage.
Sun Newspaper Group - Aside fro mthe fact that this is basically routine transfer news, there is essentially no coverage whatsoever in this extremely brief report.

Additionally, all three sources refer to the same transfer, so can hardly be added together to show GNG. Can you provide a source which shows and in depth career summary or a reasonably lengthy interview with the player? Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi. Thanks for your note. RE "Search returns articles on hurler as well". Yup. I didn't take the time to construct a search term which would preclude other people with a similar name. RE "Some of coverage is usual platitudes from manager". In honesty, pretty much all football coverage is of that nature. RE "Examples provided refer to the same transfer". Yup. Again, I didn't take the time to expand the search - just noted that a very quick search returned coverage broadly indicative of GNG. RE "An interview specifically related to the subject". Here's one or two. Although both are of the "usual platitudes from manager" variety. RE "NFOOTY (incl 'competitive senior international match at confederation level')" it might be worth noting that apparently the subject was capped for the international side.[1] Presumably this cap against England amateurs.[2] Unsure of relevance to NN myself. In the meantime I've sought to improve the tonal/sourcing issues in the article itself. Guliolopez (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this is not an interview with the player, which is what I was talking about. It is an article in which again there are some quotes from his manager before a much longer section on the club, the league and upcoming fixtures. Can you point to any article where someone has actually sat down with the player and talked to him to produce an interview or who has written a dedicated piece about his career? Searching I can't find anything, which is not surprising given this is a player who played mainly amateur football before a brief career in a semi-pro / borderline pro league. Regarding international caps, these are only valid per NFOOTY for senior international appearances. Fenix down (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE "amateur caps don't count towards NFOOTY". That's fine. Was just adding it to the pile. RE "interview with the subject themselves". Sure. How about this interview seemingly captured arising from a sports writers' award received. Guliolopez (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of what I'm talking about, but it's really for a very minor achievement. I think you'd need to show a fair number of them before it would really indicate notability, but its definitely the sort of thing that helps. Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE "that's what I'm talking about". OK. Cool. RE "need more interviews before it'd indicate GNG". In honesty it's not my interpretation of GNG that sources only indicate notability if they are interviews with a subject. Rather than (for example) interviews or coverage about a subject. RE "*you'd* need to show". In honesty I'm unsure how this comes down to me personally. My motivation for contributing to the discuss was the "gap" I noted between the "no sources indicating GNG" comments, and what I saw in my own quick search. What I have done personally is addressed a number of issues in the article (most of which were, to my own eye, more concerning or AfD-worthy than possible NN issues). As these are largely addressed, and as I'm not really seeing any remaining GNG issues to cover, I'm unlikely to invest much more time on it myself. If the community feels that the article and subject don't meet the guidelines, then I'm not overly concerned. However, my own recommendation still leans towards keep. On GNG grounds. Guliolopez (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - partially per Guliolopez's comment, partially because I think this article just has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing for top flight Irish club Cork City and being at the top of the game in Ireland hence playing in the League of Ireland Premier Division and even playing in Uefa competition passes N:Footy surely? Never-the-less, I've seen enough on a google search to pass WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govvy (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 10:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NFOOTY is perhaps not the only criteria to consider. No thoughts on GNG? Guliolopez (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've said and demonstrated in previous AfDs, I could write well-sourced articles on players who play for the club I support (A.F.C. Sudbury, currently playing at the seventh level in England), but I don't because I have no illusions that they're notable. As far as I'm concerned what actually makes players notable is the league they play in or playing internationally. Number 5 7 13:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for the note. RE "As I've said and demonstrated in previous AfDs". Am afraid I don't follow yourself and all other related AfDs, so am not previously familiar with your own personal perspective. Apologies. RE "as far as I'm concerned what makes players notable is the league they play in". I guess that's your own perspective. But the project perspective does generally rely on other criteria. Including SIGCOV and GNG. RE "or playing internationally". The subject here has played internationally. Including for the Irish equivalent of the England national football C team. Does that mean the subject meets your own personal criteria? Guliolopez (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, playing for England C doesn't make someone notable – full national team cap or appearance at the Olympics as per WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 15:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "playing for England C doesn't make someone notable". That's fine. I wasn't suggesting that (inherently) it did. Rather, there was an apparent implication that the underlying WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:GNG and related NN criteria shouldn't be applied. And, instead, only a specific interpretation of a single criteria (NFOOTY) should be applied. And hence I was trying to understand what interpretation of that criteria was in question. In honesty I'm still unsure why GNG is overlooked in this way. Guliolopez (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GNG is met, barely, with articles like this (yes, it's just the top third of that), and this. Nfitz (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG due to enough credible sources. --Jimbo^[online] 20:31, 28 April 2017 (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.