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.
Keep - the blog is, in my humble opinion at least, a reliable source. As I have said on a discussion over at WP:ANI, "Just because it is a blog does not mean it isn't reliable - WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", and contributors to the NIFG blog include respected and established football contibutors such as George Glass, who is a senior researcher over at IFFHS, another respected online footballing source." Anyways, regardless of that blog, I have added another reliable source to show notability. GiantSnowman21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Official blogs maybe be RS but these usually have the authors name on the article. These articles are anonymous and do not pass WP:V.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a bog-standard current player profile that every Tom, Dick & Harry for every club gets, and this which is an in-depth retrosepctive of a player's career. GiantSnowman21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But its not an independent source is it. Dont worry I am used to your (and your cabals) double standards! Hence the reason I am retired.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am just trying to find some consistancy with you guys - which was always, and seems still is still, lacking. You always said that if the article was produced by the players club then it wasnt "third party" and therefore didnt pass as a WP:RS - I'm just saying what you said!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, you were using non-third party player profiles to show that a player passed WP:GNG, which specifically asks for independent sources - and therefore they weren't good enough. I am not doing that here. GiantSnowman21:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N states that it should be a "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject" - this source is from the players clubs is that "Independent of the subject"? Just checkin like!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt an official in-depth club retrosepctive of a players successful career is going to be rejected as a RS - let's see what other editors have to say, OK? GiantSnowman21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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;
Comment:note that this request for deletion has arisen as a result of a personal issue on the part of User:Vintagekits, who appears to have raised this at AN/I as some kind of "revenge" for an incident report which I made against him here. Mooretwin (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The personal comments above should be struck out. Please keep your comments to the content, and not about what you believe the motivations of other editors to be. --HighKing (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one that made this afd, not VK. Or are you suggesting I'm a sockpuppet of him? If that is the case, then it is a personal attack, as it is without evidence, and should be removed.— DædαlusContribs10:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making no such accusation. The point being made is that this nomination arose as a result of a "revenge" complaint made by VK at AN/I. Also note that he weighed in here after you nominated the article. Mooretwin (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't, then please retract the assertion that the motivation for this request is personal. I am in no way involved with either you or VK, it is not personal.— DædαlusContribs10:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moretowin, the rationale behind the AfD has nothing to do with you personally, it is to do with the accuracy of information contained within the article as it stood when the nomination was made, which is a perfectly valid reason for AfD. I would second Daedalus' suggestion to strike through your comments, as an AfD debate isn't the place for this. Regards, GiantSnowman10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I already changed the comments. Second, I'm not saying that the rationale is anything to do with me personally: I'm saying that the issue arose out of a personal issue in respect of User:Vintagekits. Mooretwin (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"note that this request for deletion has arisen as a result of a personal issue on the part of User:Vintagekits" - your personal run-ins with Vintagekits have nothing to do with this AfD, and yet that comment remains for some reason! GiantSnowman10:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article currently has a reference from Northern Ireland Soccer Yearbook 2009-2010 which appears to denote notability to the subject. Not having a copy, can MT paste the relevent comments here? Personally, if Clancy is notable, I see no reason why this article should be deleted. --HighKing (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, there has been a very recent discussion here which proves the reliability of the NIFG source which Daedalus969 previously believed to be a unreliable source; even Daedalus969 has said he now views it as reliable. GiantSnowman11:04, 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.