Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddy Lawlor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. TigerShark (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy Lawlor

Paddy Lawlor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural listing of an article about a gaelic football player and team captain per a deletion review. Sources might be available off line, no further opinion. Tikiwont (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I already took a look at this article when it was up for DRV. This is a four sentence article about a team captain, when the team itself has only ten lines of text. Hard to justify an article, especially with very weak sources. Per WP:BIO#Athletes, amateur players are notable only at the highest level of competition, e.g. the Olympics, though if it happens that they have their own press coverage this can justify an article. There are, in fact, no sources at all in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I think that players who play beneath the senior inter-county level are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Bláthnaid 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Article doesn't establish notability. archanamiya · talk 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per EdJohnston. Notability not established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • PS Deletion review usually makes sensible decisions; if I don't always agree with them, but they usually make some sense. However, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, and it seems like a pointless bit of bureaucracy for the DRV of this article to send this article back here when its deletion was nearly inevitable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, with the comment of BrownHairedGirl. (I was the person who originally speedied this.) Stifle (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment The purpose of DRV is to ensure following deletion policy, because speedy nomination when not meeting the standards there tends to throw out the good as well as the bad. The point of the limitation is that when someone claims something as notability, its better for us all to have a chance to look at it. Otherwise it degenerates into deleting everything any admin thinks is non notable. There wouldnt be much left, if that's the way we did things. DGG (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, seems no less notable than the captain of a minor English football team. Lack of online sources can be explained by the fact that his career pre-dates the Internet. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC).
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.