Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Kearney

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. — Coren ^(talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Kearney

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. No other assertion of notability beyond youth caps (on which there is a consensus that they do not confer notability) and nothing to suggest that he passes WP:BIO either. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - can't find any significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO, only one article from the Irish Herald and one from setanta with him discussing his club, and also fails WP:ATHLETE. Basement12 (T.C) 17:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep pending the outcome of this discussion. Basement12 (T.C) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of appearances --T-rex 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played in FAI Premier League - highest level of football in Ireland. We established previously in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Gallagher (footballer) that such players are notable. Also there was a discussion recently on whether such players should be deleted in WP Footy that appeared to be unanamious in conferring notability on such players. Nfitz (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - then this needs to be laid down in a set of clearly understandable and accepted guidelines. Similar problems were brought up with this AfD. Notability criteria for football players are an absolute mess with little consistency between cases (as the very example of a keep you give above itself gives examples of articles deleted). At the moment accepted wikipedia policy does not allow for the subject discussed in this AfD to have an article. Basement12 (T.C) 01:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that we established that such players are notable in that AfD is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. There was another AfD at around the same time which ended in delete. WP:ATHLETE demands "fully professional league", not "fully professional league or semi-professional top divisions". пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a fortnight earlier, and didn't get as much discussion - looks like everyone who said Delete also chimed in on the later discussion - and with the later discussion on WP:FOOTIE that seemed to be unanamious in keeping these articles, I'd have thought that using the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" was a violation of both WP:FAITH and WP:NPA. I'd have certainly spoke against it had I known about it. Basement is correct - entire thing is a inconsistent mess.Nfitz (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league. --Jimbo^[online] 15:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we've established absolutely nothing - he does not play in a fully professional league, therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE, and that's all I care about. --Angelo (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He DOES play in a full time professional team. The League of Ireland has never been a fully professional league but this does not mean player articles should be deleted. Plays in the highest level of football in Ireland. Already established previously in that such players are notable. Also criteria needs to be changed as this is popping up too often. There are almost 1200 LOI players here. Are you going to delete all of them? Number 57 needs to get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.249.129 (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He might play for a fully professional club, but WP:ATHLETE clearly states that it must be a fully professional league. We have not established that such players are notable, and the fact that this keeps popping up does not mean the criteria needs to be changed - if anything it means that more people need to know the guidelines before creating articles. Also, I suggest you read WP:NPA before commenting again. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GAA players would be kept if they have enough coverage to satisfy WP:N and would pass WP:ATHLETE under the principal that they play at the highest possible level. The problem with football players who only play in Ireland is that the League of Ireland is not the highest level of competition, if the player is good enough they move to England (or Scotland in some cases). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Liam Kearney is well known across Ireland, and he is as well known as the GAA players and tell me Number 57 are GAA players paid? You find that out and then tell me if a professional player in a semi-professional league is better than amateur players in an amateur game? And they are all just as well known. 6 million people have heard of Liam Kearney, so what more do you have to know about him?--CorkCityFCRebelArmy (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CorkCityFCRebelArmy (talk · contribs) has almost no contributions outside this debate. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 million people have heard of him (or in this edit you claim that 25 million people have heard of him)? Can you provide facts to back that up, because to me that just looks like a ridiculous claim to make. In addition, telling me to "stay away from Irish football articles, if you know what's good for you"[1] is not exactly WP:CIVIL. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I have a lot of sympathy with the Keep view, in that WP:ATHLETE is flawed if a single game fourth-tier player (or even in the Johnstones Paint Trophy) in England is more notable than a top-tier player in the likes of Ireland and Estonia (even if they are playing Champions League), it is current policy so I have to go with Delete - fchd (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is policy to delete professional footballers who play in the top tier of Irish soccer it needs to be changed and as per Nfitz. BigDunc^Talk 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to change it go ahead, but for now the policy is very clear - he doesn't play in a fully professional league => he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You say I think anyone who has represented their country is by definition notable, and as far as I'm aware, this has always been considered to be the case...' on the talk page of the notability article, this footballer has represented his country at various levels. BigDunc^Talk 18:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was talking about full internationals - as I stated in the introduction to this AfD, he has only played at youth levels and it has long been consensus that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - | In relation to facts, yes I can. At 6 million I was talking about the island in which he comes from. The 25 million is in relation to the rest of the world.--CorkCityFCRebelArmy (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the question that needs to be asked is this;"Is someone likely to look this guy up on Wikipedia an expect to find information on him?" I would say the answer is yes, he is a player competing at the highest level of the game in what an english speaking country. Now at the moment the guidelines don't allow for his, or similar articles, to be kept on Wikipedia. However that doesn't mean that the rules on the notability of footballers don't need changing, I for one think that they do. Basement12 (T.C) 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless somebody adds references or links to the article that show he passes WP:N. The only external link on the page at present is to Cork City FC, which is not sufficiently independent of the player. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Change the policy. Again I ask are you going to delete 1200 LOI players? Also dont be so sensitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.249.129 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't attempt to !vote twice -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the current LOI players who have articles meet WP:ATHLETE because they have played in fully professional leagues. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we are going to delete all these players, we should really start at the bottom with players from Finn Harps or UCD, who not anything as well known as any of Cork's players.--86.41.94.81 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter where we start, if they don't meet the criteria they don't meet the criteria regardless of who they play for. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ugen64 (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per what exactly? I don't see any rationale behind the keep !votes other than WP:ILIKEIT and some nonsense stats on how many people have supposedly heard of him. There is no evidence to suggest that he passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change the policy. Gone beyond a joke at this stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead and try and change it, but for now it's clear that he fails it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- In less than half an hour of searching, I found and included five reliable sources and I'm certain I can find more. Liam Kearney clearly meets WP:N with or without WP:ATHLETE. Reyk _YO! 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the added sources clearly meets the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (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.