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. While there were several comments from unregistered or new users which are customarily discounted, that didn't knock out enough support to warrant deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Gallagher (footballer)[edit]

Neil Gallagher (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Football player who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but prod removed by IP without explanation.

Also nominating Darren McKenna and Vinny Perth who play for the same club and have never played in a fully professional league. Prods removed by same IP with claim that prodding them was vandalism. Same IP also removed the AfD tag from this article on another player from the same club, which is also heading for deletion. Another AfD on a player from the same club also recently closed as delete. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep changed to Keep I'm seeing several relevent hits in Excite, but I'm not sure that these articles are factually acurate. Please note that this is not the first time the articles have been to AfD, and they were kept last time. We delete way too many articles out of sheer laziness. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide a link to the previous AfD debates? I can't find any previous AfDs linking to any of the articles, and there is nothing on the talk page. If there was a past AfD it may have been do to lack of clarity on whether the Irish league was fully professional or not, but now it is clear that it isn't.[1] пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these pages up for deletion?? These are League of Ireland players and no they are not professional as only some of the premier clubs are. So what? There are links provided to prove that they play for these clubs. BTW the Irish League is in Northern Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.249.129 (talk • contribs)

• Delete All per nom. Quentin X (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These clubs seem pro, and that allows them to pass WP:ATHLETE. I've heard there was a debate a while back where a soccer player (yes, soccer) from Iceland was kept because it was determined that the league he was in was the highest achievable for him. If I'm wrong in saaying these are pro, please tell me why.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  15:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If I'm wrong in saaying these are pro, please tell me why" - see this news story, which establishes that at least 33% of the teams in the league are not professional, which means it isn't a fully pro league as required by WP:ATHLETE - ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Every club in the League of Ireland pays its players. They are semi professional. With all due respect this is a facile, pedantic argument. Are you going to delete almost 1,200 League of Ireland players?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.249.129 (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if they haven't played in a fully professional league, then yes, because they fail to meet the criteria. I don't see how the fact that these people clearly fail WP:ATHLETE is facile or pedantic. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Good point above. A lot of fans have created pages for LOI players and you want to delete them? Changing the criteria rather than needlessly deleting pages would be a better start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that "A lot of fans have created pages" is totally irrelevant (and if anything, is actually slightly negative, as fans tend to be somewhat biased and unwilling to admit that their subjects do not pass the notability threshold - see WP:FANCRUFT). As for changing the policy, go ahead and try; but for now it is clear: Not played in a fully professional league = no article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This side has played in European-wide competitions; it has won honours in competition with professional sides. Football in the Republic of Ireland is run on the margins between professional and semi-professional, but it not non-professional (in the sense of being amateur). Similarly, the teams are run as professional business concerns (and are punished for not adhering to good business practice: [2]), so that although the players may not derive the whole of their living from football, they are nonetheless retained by businesses in order to play football, which is the business carried on by their clubs. In that sense then, the league is unarguably a wholly professional one, even if the players are not all fully professional and that seems to be the notability test. The problem here may be a lack of clarity about what makes a person a "professional" sportsman. On another note, independent sources (including Irish national broadcaster, www.rte.ie and other national print media outlets) refer to this guy and his colleagues so he may well pass general notability if re-written with more refs. Brammarb (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATHLETE doesn't say anything about playing in Europe or in a league with fully professional sides. There is no lack of clarity whatsoever; it must be a fully professional league, and the ROI leagues are not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What about Wikipedia:FOOTYN? I am a little uncertain about the status of this guideline, but on the specific sub-category of footballers, it seems that these guys fulfil the second sentence of guideline 1 subject to references being provided and some of them will fulfil criterion 2 if they played in Longford Town's UEFA Cup run. It seems to me that if the proper references of national level football +/- European football (within the professional UEFA structure) are provided, then these guys should be kept. Will try to provide this info over the next day or so, if time permits. Brammarb (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:FOOTYN was not accepted by the community so should be ignored. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we've had a few AfDs previously for players in national-level leagues from major countries where are not completely professional and the result has been that the articles should be kept; this is not different. Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, perhaps you could help us by giving us a few examples. I don't/can't recall any. --Jimbo^[online] 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they did, it was an error, as they very clearly fail WP:ATHLETE. Look at the two other AfDs linked in the intro of this AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say that one was an error; suggesting that 100's of articles of fully professional Irish football players, that play on fully professional teams, who meet WP:FOOTYN be deleted, simply because a few of the clubs in the top league in the country are not quite fully professional, violates WP:CS, WP:BIAS, and is WP:POINT. Please don't do it. Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd say that repeatedly !voting keep on articles that you know fail WP:ATHLETE, consistently referring to WP:FOOTYN when you've been told tens of times that it's irrelevant, and attempting to downplay the fact that 5/12 clubs in the league are not fully-professional is not only a violation of WP:POINT, but also a serious violation of WP:DICK. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:14, 5 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.