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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Delaney (footballer)[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) standards for association football; never played in a fully professional league (League of Ireland is not considered fully professional). Contested prod. only (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced biography of a living person. A notable sportsperson should show up plenty of Google News and Newspapers hits. He doesn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article, he died in 2003, so he's not living which would make the lack of Google News understandable. only (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ugh. Yes. Sorry. I was getting different articles mixed up in my head. My point still stands, with modification, though. A notable sportsperson of the past should show up in Google Newspapers and Google Books searches. A newspapers search will show up the coverage of the time and a books search should show up any ongoing historic interest. Just throw in the name of a semi-obscure to medium-famous sportsperson of the past and you get some hits. He doesn't. Of course, if the author of the article had given us anything else to go on, we could consider those sources as well but they didn't so this is all we have to go on. I'll also note that the article is an orphan apart from one disambiguation link. In more than 8 years of existence nobody has felt the need to link it to any of the related articles, which suggests that the authors of those articles, who presumably know about the those subjects, don't regard him as particularly important. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is notable and is about the same as other articles in Wikipedia which are judged a keep. I kNow abOut bankS (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell us what makes him notable? What aspects of WP:GNG or Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability does he meet? only (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several mentions in the print edition of the Irish Times. I kNow abOut bankS (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show those to us, please? only (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind...I've blocked him indefinitely for unrelated issues. only (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 12:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated here passes WP:NFOOTY, and none of it is reliably sourced at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a stronger claim of notability and better sources can actually be shown — but we don't keep inadequate articles on the basis that those things might eventually become possible, if it can't be definitively shown that they are true. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 7 February 2016 (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.