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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Connor[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The citations although a few seem a bit thin, if the top tier in Ireland was fully pro, I would say keep, but because it isn't he fails NFooty. Govvy (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2017
Keep top tier in Ireland is turning pro. Connor plays for a team which has recently turned fully professional with the supply of 52 week full time contracts to its players so he does qualify — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCsupporter2018 (talk • contribs)

reply Where is your evidence for the league turning pro? Govvy (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford Shamrock Rovers and Dundalk have since joined Cork in being fully professional. The league will soon be fully pro so keep! http://www.the42.ie/john-caulfield-52-week-contracts-3654376-Oct2017/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCsupporter2018 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately as that article says "While 52-week contracts are becoming increasingly more common again, particularly at clubs like Dundalk and Shamrock Rovers, they remain the exception rather than the rule", it pretty conclusively proves that the league isn't fully professional.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:20, 15 November 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ there is tons of League of Ireland players who haven't made an appearance in the "fully pro" leagues as you say. The fully pro league argument is thin and these pages are very useful for League of Ireland fans especially during the transfer window to find out first hand info on players. These pages should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCsupporter2018 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:C543:2300:A850:D861:A1FF:83DD (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — 2A02:8084:C543:2300:A850:D861:A1FF:83DD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep good keeper with bright future. Page should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.118.62 (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ he also has already achieved a lot at international level and league of Ireland. Page should be kept. Silly to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.118.62 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Should be kept bright future and good level — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.118.62 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, you may not !vote more than once. As this is not a simple majority vote, endlessly adding "keep" and a comment that isn't grounded in WP policies isn't going to sway the outcome, especially when the closing admin can see that the comments are all from the same person..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 21 November 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.