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. (X! · talk) · @924 · 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Molloy (footballer)[edit]

Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at fully-professional level of football. Lack of non-trivial significant third-party sources means he also fails the general notability guidelines at WP:GNG. Only independent source is a stats page which doesn't confirm he passes WP:ATH or give us any significant coverage of this person. --Jimbo^[online] 15:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this stupid campaign is getting close to being considered disruptive editing in my opinion. Players in the top division in Ireland are notable - here is a list of recent AfD's which have discussed the issue. If the sources are poor then improve them - that is not a reason to delete.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of AfDs about Irish soccer player is biased as it doesn't include the many numerous players who have been deleted via PROD or AfD - a number which far outweighs those that have been kept. Giant Snowman 15:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown you mine - you show me yours! Look at all the recent AfD's - FOOTY Project members clubing together and making absolute dicks of themselves.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FOOTY deletion archive can be found here. Alas, I can't tell which players are Irish. And as for your accusations of us being dicks, I point you in the way of WP:MOBY. Giant Snowman 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in response you give me a list of ever single footballer that has ever been to AfD - good retort! What am I dealing with here?--Vintagekits (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said, there's no way I can see what articles deleted were of Irish players! Giant Snowman 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? Show me your list of players that have played in the Premier Division in Ireland that have been deleted or else stop flappin yer gums because providing a list of every player under the sun that has gone to AfD is about a relevant as quotin the price of cabbage.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you incapable of understanding that it is impossible for me to see what Irish players have been deleted - precisely because the articles have been deleted, and therefore I cannot look on said article to check their nationality..? Anyways a couple of Irish players recently deleted include Aaron Stewart, Eamon Kavanagh, Eoghan Carew, David Nicholl...Giant Snowman 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be incapable of telling the difference between the IFA and the FAI and the first division and the premier division - jog on!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to "jog on" at all - it is near-impossible to tell what league a player has or hasn't played in IF THEIR ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED!!! Giant Snowman 15:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the AfD then - shouldnt be hard for a man of your undoubted intelligence!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did look for additional sources to try to meet the GNG criteria, as I did for Ger Hanley (footballer). However, I couldn't find anything substantial thus this AfD. --Jimbo^[online] 15:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and WP:N (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Giant Snowman 15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm opposed to this deletionism in general - as Vinatagekits says, it almost looks like disruptive editing, but this player unfortuanately does not meet the criteria here. I'd suggest the article history be kept however, to facilitate its reappearance should notable sources appear. Jhealy (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can you explain the difference between this player and his team-mate Niall Walsh who you !voted to Keep especially as Molloy has played a significant amount more game for Galway and scored in the Premier Division - unlike Walsh.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plays at the top level of Irish soccer, of course he's notable. Derry Boi (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that playing at the top level of football in San Marino or Monserrat is notable? Giant Snowman 16:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that it is in England, USA, Italy, Belgium and other notable footballing countries.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're fully-professional though. --Jimbo^[online] 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get over this obsession with having every player in the league to be professional before you consider a league notable. Take the blinkers off child.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kee, plays for a professional team in the highest league in Ireland, passes WP:N.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Give Jimbo the boot instead. Dahamsta (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is uncalled for. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the several other players who are up for deletion, they all meet the requisite criterium. Centre mid (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plays at a professional level, therefore passes WP:ATHLETE. -Falcon8765 (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but not a fully-professional level as the criteria states. --Jimbo^[online] 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he is a member of the FAI Premier Division then he appears to be a member of a top level professional league to me. -Falcon8765 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FAI Premier Division isn't fully-professional though. Shamrock Rovers website says they're part-time. --Jimbo^[online] 19:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Whats yer point? The league slips in and out of full professionalism to predominantly full professionalism. The fact remains that it is the top league in a major footballing nation - therefore notable as far as I, and the community concensus, are concerned.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe he meets wikipedias criteria, he plays for a notable team in a notable league and has plenty of reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80SRFC80 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What non-trivial sources do you believe meet WP:GNG? The reliability was never in doubt. --Jimbo^[online] 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont consider the sources provided to be of a trivial nature.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name checks in match reports and stats sites? I do. What would you consider trivial if those aren't? There's nothing about his exploits as a player personally. --Jimbo^[online] 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed decription of his goal in the premier division my child. Keep the AfD's coming - and gettin yer arse kicked! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's as trivial as they come. I could find details descriptions of goals for players all over non-League in match reports. --Jimbo^[online] 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well when that is the top league in a major footballing nation then I will consider them good enough to pass WP:N.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N as the sources provided in the article only consist of stats and brief mentions in match reports (this guideline requires more than a trivial mention, even if the subject isn't the main topic of the source), fails WP:BIO as he has not acheived anything of note, and fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully professional level (many of the teams in the Irish league are part-timers). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 06:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vintagekits. BigDunc 16:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Player is professional, plays in a professional team and a league where eight out of ten teams are professional. Now how he can fail WP:N is beyond me. I'll put in reliable references to show he is notable.--Leagueofireland (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Leagueofireland, the article I mean, not the flames on this talk page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sioraf (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional footballer playing in the League of Ireland.89.168.146.91 (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.Belacqua Shuah (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I am feeling that the "fully professional" requirement at WP:ATHLETE does not accurately reflect consensus and should be modified. Comparing this to San Marino is pretty much a straw man. Ireland is not some silly little country on a small isle in the Atlantic. It is comparable to my country of Norway in size, and the interest in football is almost surely of the same level. Players at the top national level in a country like that get covered in the press. The idea is to ensure that the athletes we cover are playing at a high enough level where there is widespread public interest for what they are doing, not that everyone gets paid for what they are doing. Given that the exploits of clubs like Galway United, and the players who play for them are well-covered in Irish press (e.g. [1]), and that the basics of the article are verifiable [2], the article should pass notability criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is a notable footballer playing in a notable (top-level) league Eldumpo (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, he probably doesn't meet the WP:ATHLETE guideline, but there is a fair quantity (if not quality) of sources which definitely verifies his status and arguably satisfies WP:N. I don't see any real benefit in deleting. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I very much share the sentiment of Jmorrison. He appears to fail WP:BIO, although the independent sources help the article pass WP:N and so establish some degree of notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:39, 1 August 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.