Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Donoghue

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. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Donoghue

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single three-minute substitute appearance in an alleged 'fully professional league' twenty years ago. Fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, which is way more important than 3 minutes of playing in an FPL. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case, Subject-specific guidelines supersede WP:GNG. WP:GNG is a general notability guideline to take into account where a subject does not meet for the requirements stated in Subject-specific guidelines. Both work together actually, but technically if a subject meets the requirements for the Subject-specific guidelines is notable. Keep per WP:DELREASON --Kemalcan (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slightly more interesting than the Mansfield-cruft we had to deal with, but still non-notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of meeting GNG and I don't see any reason to keep this one when there is such strong consensus that passing NFOOTBALL by only a few mins is a weak presumption of notability at best. This is no different to the 10 or so Hungarian players deleted in the last fortnight for the same reason. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no subject specific guidelines do not exceed GNG. Good subject specific guidelines come close to telling us when GNG will be met. However in the case of football and cricket it has been shown over and over that the existing guidelines are too broad and are not an accurate indicator of meeting GNG. Subject specific guidelines can be more stringent than GNG, for politicians, because almost every politician who ever ran for office in a place with media would technically meet multiple significant coverage in indepdent sources, but we realize that we do not have the will to create articles on every person who ever ran for a state legislture. Subject specific guidelines do not overcome lack of passing GNG. They point out where we might expect a poorly sourced article to be better sourced, but in football and cricket a long history of deep study has show that the Subject specific guidelines are not predicting a passing of GNG. They should really be scrapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Thanks BubblySnow 💬 17:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Sock blocked, WP:SOCKSTRIKE.[reply]
Delete, Does not satisfy WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2021 (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.