Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Coyne (footballer, born 1987)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Coyne (footballer, born 1987)

Tommy Coyne (footballer, born 1987) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Coyne (footballer, born 1987) Stats)

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

He hasn't played at a fully professional level (

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete concur with nomination on rationale and cannot find significant other coverage to pass GNG. PROD was removed with edit summary claiming all clubs he played for were in the Scottish Professional Football League and he was not a full time player. These clubs are in the SPFL, but only as semi professional clubs so does not pass WP:FOOTY which requires "fully professional" ClubOranje^T 08:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  WP:NFOOTY. I placed the original PROD on it, but didn't pursue it then when the creator of the article removed it, although I couldn't agree with their reasoning for doing so. Jellyman (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Keep - The argument that the player does not play for a full time club is irrelevant. Dumbarton - while part time - is one of the founder members of the Scottish League and for that reason alone, supporting articles should be acceptable. Indeed if this reasoning was taken to its logical conclusion most of the Scottish football articles would be up for deletion (only 20 of the 42 SPFL clubs claim full time status). The article as it stands is factual and I had added a note that any further information be welcomed. User:aitkegs 12:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Far from being irrelevant, the fact that the player does not play for a full-time club. The idea that any Dumbarton player should be allowed an article because they were founder members of the SFL is really quite silly. Number 57 12:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Surely the whole definition of an encyclopedia is to encompass information on all different aspects. Yes it should be factual but why exclude because it does not comply to a certain view. I regard that as silly - and Wikipedia would have to look to redefine itself. User:aitkegs 12:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't get to "vote twice. Also, you may want to read
    WP:N Number 57 15:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment: what I would add is that the criteria can be a bit illogical at times. A player in the team for 15 years at a SPFL club who never get above 'League 1' (really hate these current division names) would most likely fail the test for notability unless they have media coverage for another reason. However another player can make 1 appearance in the 'Championship' then drop down the leagues and early retirement from the game, but they would probably pass the test. And while the Dumbarton players mentioned in these discussions seem to fail the criteria, others who made appearances during the current spell in the second tier would be be OK, even if (again) they end up down at Vale of Leven within a year. So not dependant on the club itself, and not dependant on the player having a consistent spell in the top leagues. Imperfect. But nevertheless it is the system in place currently.Crowsus (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails both criteria Spiderone 11:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTY. Concur with nominator. Antonioatrylia (talk) 05:34, 25 June 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.