David O'Connor (footballer) – Overturn and relist – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
David O'Connor (footballer) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Closing admin wasn't a disinterested party. While they didn't participate in the debate, the deletion was also discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#FAI Premier Division - professional or not!?! where the closing admin contributed extensively with posts such as [1] [2] [3] [4]. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to "no consensus". The debate was generally "It fails WP:ATHLETE!" vs. "It passes WP:ATHLETE!" While the delete !votes were reasonable, none of them provided evidence in the AfD that the FAI premier division wasn't a professional league, whereasthere was evidence posted that it was. Also, looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, it's quite clear there was no consensus on this matter at the WikiProject when the AfD was closed, either. Therefore, I would have closed the AfD as "no consensus" if I had been the closer. Also, I agree with the nominator that it was clearly improper for User:Number 57 to close the AfD after being involved in a debate about one of the key points of the AfD. The closer should have taken part in the AfD, not closed it.--Aervanath (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion we're talking about facts, not opinions. Fact is the League of Ireland is not fully professional, since several of its teams are semi-pro indeed (and this was proved with reliable sources). And facts don't need any sort of consensus, as we do not need to reach a consensus to establish if Elvis Presley has died or is still alive somewhere in the world. --Angelo (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment, it wasnt about facts at all it was about POV - the closing admins POV! Were there sources provided to indicate that the league was professional as well as sources to say it wasnt? The closing admin was agruing elsewhere about this subject - do you not consider that that may give rise to a potential conflict of interest. I think it was very ill advised for Number 57 to do this - admins should not only be fair and neutral but be seen to be fair and neutral - in this case he was neither.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] The closing admin hasn't participated in the AfD discussion, so I don't really see your point. If you ask for an overturn (as you did in your edit below), then it means you are actually contesting the rationale, which is actually correct and strengthened by reliable sources. --Angelo (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] You dont really see my point or you are choosing not to see my point in order that you can back a fellow member of the FOOTY project up that backs you up on pretty much every issue that you engage in? If there is one thing that has become starkly clear to me over the past two weeks is the ownership issue that the members of the footy project have over "their articles". There are two issues with this AfD which scream out at an outsider looking at this issue. 1. Number 57 was participating in a discussion that was running parallel to the AfD on the same subject and he arguing that players in the FAI Premier Division should not be considered notable - I think any right minded person that would consider that a conflict of interest. And 2. Multiple sources were provided that outline that the league is professional by two editors - no evidence was submitted by any other editor to say it wasn't. And two very recent closures of AfD's here and here which were closed by neutral admins seemed to set a precident that they were notable. Infact Number 57 argued that the closure of the Seamus Coleman AfD should be overturned on the basis that he wasnt notable - hello - conflict of interest. Number 57 ignored all evidence provided which was contrary to his POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as the closer of the original debate. As Angelo notes, this is not an issue of opinion - it is a clear fact that the FAI Premier Division is not fully professional as noted and evidenced in the closing summary. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, I am ashamed that Angelo and Number 57 have the absolute gall to endorse this closure. The closing admin was in a dispute over this issue at the exact time that he closed the AfD. He provided a source which stated that Shamrock Rovers are part time this season however, this player played in the top division for a number of seasons - and sources where provided to state that the league was then professional - and there were two recently closed AfD's of footballers in the FAI Premier Divison for players of a lesser natural that were kept. Anywhere the merits or demerits of this case are immaterial. The closing AfD had a conflict of interest and should have left the decision up to a neutral admin not someone involved in a dispute at the time. Overturn the AfD, admonish the admin for acting like this and warn him about future conduct and if necessary put the article up for AfD again. More details on this can be found here. Number 57 you are an absolute disgrace to your adminship and use your admin powers in a selfish and ill advised manner. --Vintagekits (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Could you show us where this source that states the league was professional in past seasons? The only one you provided to date that explicitly says it is a fully professional league is one from the BBC dated June 2009, which is clearly contradicted by other, more reliable sources (i.e. clubs' own websites). If there is a reliable source that clearly states it was fully professional in 2007 (when UCD were in the league) or 2008 (in which Cobh were in the league) then I will happily restore the article. But without any clear evidence, there is justification to do so. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I provided it in the AfD - you ignored it then and I have no reason to believe that you wouldnt ignore it now! Do you consider that others may have percieved that you had a conflict of interest over this issue? Do you think it was best practice that an admin involved in a debate elsewhere over the very issue of this players notability should be the one to close the AfD?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Please stop. Since you're the nominator, it's really quite important that you do not appear to be badgering the closer. DRV might take a very dim view of that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I am neither the nominator nor the closer.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Weak overturn. By numbers alone, a "delete" closure seems reasonable, but the arguments "fails WP:ATHLETE" were not very well backed up, and Vintagekits had a sensible argument which should not be ignored. The closer's job is to evaluate consensus and the debate, and if he or she has a strong opinion on the matter, the proper course of action is to participate in the AFD, not close it. Given Number 57's previous history of nominating several athlete articles for deletion (which, I should add, has been conducted in a proper manner, though I haven't always agreed with him), it would have been better to let another admin close this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse on belief that the article was correctly deleted on basis of failure of WP:ATHLETE, which subject does fail under stated criteria, and regardless of any other discussions closing admin may have been involved in, one must assume good faith that the admin considered the AfD on its merits. Evidence that LOI is not fully pro outweighs the odd bit of random lazy press that implies it may be. --*ClubOranje^T 10:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment, lazy journalism! The BBC, RTE, the Irish Independent. I think you need to have a look at WP:V.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn* per Aervanath. The behaviour of Number 57 IMO was wrong on this issue. BigDunc^Talk 11:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. It was shown that the subject failed the relevant guidelines and the keep arguments seemed to be based largely on factually incorrect news articles which (as was pointed out in this discussion and elsewhere) contradict other sources (one of which is a primary source which actually listed the club's players' occupations). In my opinion, the closing admin's participation in a discussion elsewhere is irrelevant to the closure of this AfD and accusations of a conflict of interest are unfounded and bordering on uncivil. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Procedural overturn and list at AfD. There are two entirely separate points to consider here. The first is where consensus lay, and I agree with Angelo that a closure as "delete" was within admin discretion in this case. But the second is the nominator's point about the appearance that the closer was not entirely disinterested, and that is valid. R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy: The closer was probably capable of separating his personal opinion from the consensus at the AfD, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone should be able to see that the closer was disinterested, and we cannot.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. The league of Ireland is indeed partially professional, but it would constitute systemic bias to give coverage to players of teams 4 or 5 levels from the top of the British football league system when players in the top level of the Irish system do not get articles. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus or relist. The consensus about where the dividing line is for such athletes is unclear, and the apparent feeling of the community seems to vary from month to month. The closing admin shouldn't have closed if he has his own view on the subject and the close is not essentially unanimous, as it was here, unless he closes against his general view. It's time all of us admins got that thoroughly into our heads. It's already part of the rules, and a RfA candidate who had strong views on a subject and did not clarify that he would not close in accordance with them would not be confirmed. Every such closing should be brought here, and either overturned or relisted. . DGG (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't think it's explicitly codified or part of any rules, but it would probably do no harm to have something on it. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus per Stifle and DGG. They both hit it right on the nose. We have a combination of systemic bias on one part, lack of a consensus for deletion on another part, and a shaky closure, and the disagreement in this AFD on the role of WP:ATHLETE in this context. MuZemike 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist — Vintagekits points about closing admin COI are very serious, and as S Marshall says, we cannot tolerate this. Closing contested AfDs is tricky enough without the closer having a hidden agenda. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as per a number of comments above (from users who do not appear to be regulars at football deletion discussions) regarding possible conflicts. Players competing at notable, professional leagues such as Ireland should be kept. Eldumpo (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist, the decision to delete was reasonable, as the player concerned does not meet WP:ATHLETE and no sources were provided to satisfy WP:N, but the decision to delete perhaps should have been left to another admin. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion was valid as player fails WP:ATHLETE, as proved by reliable sources. Giant Snowman 16:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. The closing admin's decison appears to have been based on the fact that the league is not fully-professional something that they were debating at the same time on another page. Although I feel the AfD to have been closed with the correct decision I feel it is more important that we are seen to follow our own rules and be seen to be doing things fairly. I have no dount that there was no inproprietry involved but the mere appearance of it means that this should be overturn and relisted. Dpmuk (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse delete football player still fails multiple criteria as WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG, whilst lacking verification. --Jimbo^[online] 22:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The closing rationale was valid notwithstanding that the closer took part in a discussion on the LOI elsewhere. (As an aside, I note that the article was entirely unsourced and the subject appears to not meet the primary inclusion criterion.) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. I have to agree with S Marshall on this one. Even though the closer did not participate in the AFD, it's apparent from this thread that he's an interested party and should have !voted in the AFD, not closed it. We need to see that the closer was disinterested and we cannot. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist – From the process perspective: Closers do need to be disinterested parties, which clearly was not the case here. I don't doubt that the closing admin here was acting in a way that he felt was correct and in line with notability guidelines, but he did not sufficiently take into account how this might appear to others. He ought to have participated in the discussion rather than closing it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

David O'Connor (footballer) – Overturn and relist – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Closing admin wasn't a disinterested party. While they didn't participate in the debate, the deletion was also discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#FAI Premier Division - professional or not!?! where the closing admin contributed extensively with posts such as [1] [2] [3] [4]. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to "no consensus". The debate was generally "It fails WP:ATHLETE!" vs. "It passes WP:ATHLETE!" While the delete !votes were reasonable, none of them provided evidence in the AfD that the FAI premier division wasn't a professional league, whereasthere was evidence posted that it was. Also, looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, it's quite clear there was no consensus on this matter at the WikiProject when the AfD was closed, either. Therefore, I would have closed the AfD as "no consensus" if I had been the closer. Also, I agree with the nominator that it was clearly improper for User:Number 57 to close the AfD after being involved in a debate about one of the key points of the AfD. The closer should have taken part in the AfD, not closed it.--Aervanath (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion we're talking about facts, not opinions. Fact is the League of Ireland is not fully professional, since several of its teams are semi-pro indeed (and this was proved with reliable sources). And facts don't need any sort of consensus, as we do not need to reach a consensus to establish if Elvis Presley has died or is still alive somewhere in the world. --Angelo (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it wasnt about facts at all it was about POV - the closing admins POV! Were there sources provided to indicate that the league was professional as well as sources to say it wasnt? The closing admin was agruing elsewhere about this subject - do you not consider that that may give rise to a potential conflict of interest. I think it was very ill advised for Number 57 to do this - admins should not only be fair and neutral but be seen to be fair and neutral - in this case he was neither.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin hasn't participated in the AfD discussion, so I don't really see your point. If you ask for an overturn (as you did in your edit below), then it means you are actually contesting the rationale, which is actually correct and strengthened by reliable sources. --Angelo (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You dont really see my point or you are choosing not to see my point in order that you can back a fellow member of the FOOTY project up that backs you up on pretty much every issue that you engage in? If there is one thing that has become starkly clear to me over the past two weeks is the ownership issue that the members of the footy project have over "their articles".

There are two issues with this AfD which scream out at an outsider looking at this issue. 1. Number 57 was participating in a discussion that was running parallel to the AfD on the same subject and he arguing that players in the FAI Premier Division should not be considered notable - I think any right minded person that would consider that a conflict of interest.

And 2. Multiple sources were provided that outline that the league is professional by two editors - no evidence was submitted by any other editor to say it wasn't. And two very recent closures of AfD's here and here which were closed by neutral admins seemed to set a precident that they were notable. Infact Number 57 argued that the closure of the Seamus Coleman AfD should be overturned on the basis that he wasnt notable - hello - conflict of interest. Number 57 ignored all evidence provided which was contrary to his POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as the closer of the original debate. As Angelo notes, this is not an issue of opinion - it is a clear fact that the FAI Premier Division is not fully professional as noted and evidenced in the closing summary. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, I am ashamed that Angelo and Number 57 have the absolute gall to endorse this closure. The closing admin was in a dispute over this issue at the exact time that he closed the AfD. He provided a source which stated that Shamrock Rovers are part time this season however, this player played in the top division for a number of seasons - and sources where provided to state that the league was then professional - and there were two recently closed AfD's of footballers in the FAI Premier Divison for players of a lesser natural that were kept. Anywhere the merits or demerits of this case are immaterial. The closing AfD had a conflict of interest and should have left the decision up to a neutral admin not someone involved in a dispute at the time. Overturn the AfD, admonish the admin for acting like this and warn him about future conduct and if necessary put the article up for AfD again. More details on this can be found here. Number 57 you are an absolute disgrace to your adminship and use your admin powers in a selfish and ill advised manner. --Vintagekits (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you show us where this source that states the league was professional in past seasons? The only one you provided to date that explicitly says it is a fully professional league is one from the BBC dated June 2009, which is clearly contradicted by other, more reliable sources (i.e. clubs' own websites). If there is a reliable source that clearly states it was fully professional in 2007 (when UCD were in the league) or 2008 (in which Cobh were in the league) then I will happily restore the article. But without any clear evidence, there is justification to do so. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I provided it in the AfD - you ignored it then and I have no reason to believe that you wouldnt ignore it now! Do you consider that others may have percieved that you had a conflict of interest over this issue? Do you think it was best practice that an admin involved in a debate elsewhere over the very issue of this players notability should be the one to close the AfD?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please stop. Since you're the nominator, it's really quite important that you do not appear to be badgering the closer. DRV might take a very dim view of that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am neither the nominator nor the closer.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn. By numbers alone, a "delete" closure seems reasonable, but the arguments "fails WP:ATHLETE" were not very well backed up, and Vintagekits had a sensible argument which should not be ignored. The closer's job is to evaluate consensus and the debate, and if he or she has a strong opinion on the matter, the proper course of action is to participate in the AFD, not close it. Given Number 57's previous history of nominating several athlete articles for deletion (which, I should add, has been conducted in a proper manner, though I haven't always agreed with him), it would have been better to let another admin close this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse on belief that the article was correctly deleted on basis of failure of WP:ATHLETE, which subject does fail under stated criteria, and regardless of any other discussions closing admin may have been involved in, one must assume good faith that the admin considered the AfD on its merits. Evidence that LOI is not fully pro outweighs the odd bit of random lazy press that implies it may be. --ClubOranje^T 10:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, lazy journalism! The BBC, RTE, the Irish Independent. I think you need to have a look at WP:V.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per Aervanath. The behaviour of Number 57 IMO was wrong on this issue. BigDunc^Talk 11:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. It was shown that the subject failed the relevant guidelines and the keep arguments seemed to be based largely on factually incorrect news articles which (as was pointed out in this discussion and elsewhere) contradict other sources (one of which is a primary source which actually listed the club's players' occupations). In my opinion, the closing admin's participation in a discussion elsewhere is irrelevant to the closure of this AfD and accusations of a conflict of interest are unfounded and bordering on uncivil. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural overturn and list at AfD.
There are two entirely separate points to consider here. The first is where consensus lay, and I agree with Angelo that a closure as "delete" was within admin discretion in this case. But the second is the nominator's point about the appearance that the closer was not entirely disinterested, and that is valid. R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy: The closer was probably capable of separating his personal opinion from the consensus at the AfD, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone should be able to see that the closer was disinterested, and we cannot.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. The league of Ireland is indeed partially professional, but it would constitute systemic bias to give coverage to players of teams 4 or 5 levels from the top of the British football league system when players in the top level of the Irish system do not get articles. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus or relist. The consensus about where the dividing line is for such athletes is unclear, and the apparent feeling of the community seems to vary from month to month. The closing admin shouldn't have closed if he has his own view on the subject and the close is not essentially unanimous, as it was here, unless he closes against his general view. It's time all of us admins got that thoroughly into our heads. It's already part of the rules, and a RfA candidate who had strong views on a subject and did not clarify that he would not close in accordance with them would not be confirmed. Every such closing should be brought here, and either overturned or relisted. . DGG (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's explicitly codified or part of any rules, but it would probably do no harm to have something on it. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus per Stifle and DGG. They both hit it right on the nose. We have a combination of systemic bias on one part, lack of a consensus for deletion on another part, and a shaky closure, and the disagreement in this AFD on the role of WP:ATHLETE in this context. MuZemike 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist — Vintagekits points about closing admin COI are very serious, and as S Marshall says, we cannot tolerate this. Closing contested AfDs is tricky enough without the closer having a hidden agenda. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as per a number of comments above (from users who do not appear to be regulars at football deletion discussions) regarding possible conflicts. Players competing at notable, professional leagues such as Ireland should be kept. Eldumpo (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, the decision to delete was reasonable, as the player concerned does not meet WP:ATHLETE and no sources were provided to satisfy WP:N, but the decision to delete perhaps should have been left to another admin. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion was valid as player fails WP:ATHLETE, as proved by reliable sources. Giant Snowman 16:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The closing admin's decison appears to have been based on the fact that the league is not fully-professional something that they were debating at the same time on another page. Although I feel the AfD to have been closed with the correct decision I feel it is more important that we are seen to follow our own rules and be seen to be doing things fairly. I have no dount that there was no inproprietry involved but the mere appearance of it means that this should be overturn and relisted. Dpmuk (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete football player still fails multiple criteria as WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG, whilst lacking verification. --Jimbo^[online] 22:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The closing rationale was valid notwithstanding that the closer took part in a discussion on the LOI elsewhere. (As an aside, I note that the article was entirely unsourced and the subject appears to not meet the primary inclusion criterion.) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. I have to agree with S Marshall on this one. Even though the closer did not participate in the AFD, it's apparent from this thread that he's an interested party and should have !voted in the AFD, not closed it. We need to see that the closer was disinterested and we cannot. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist – From the process perspective: Closers do need to be disinterested parties, which clearly was not the case here. I don't doubt that the closing admin here was acting in a way that he felt was correct and in line with notability guidelines, but he did not sufficiently take into account how this might appear to others. He ought to have participated in the discussion rather than closing it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.