381:- I concur with Murtoa's views - a few newspaper articles in a single month does not make notability in my view. I hope the young man succeeds in his sport and that he merits an article but at this stage nope in my view. I suggest the issue has been clouded by the plethora of articles - some of which are clearly not defensible. If someone could organise these debates into those who clearly do not meet our guidelines and those who might, this debate might become a whole lot more sensible and we could all dig our heels in less. I confess to not caring much about football but as mentioned elsewhere just because somebody makes the papers does not make them notable - articles in the media help to support notability but it doesn't have to work the other way around - we would have an awful of of articles on social wanna-bes otherwise: for example
475:, which the article on the AFL site satifies. 4) Draft drama and breathless coverage notwithstanding, notability is not temporary — if his prospects in his sport are such that he was such a high draft pick and did receive coverage in multiple sources as a result, then he's notable whether he's ultimately successful in a professional career or not. In fact, a high draft pick that fails to have a professional career is separately notable is their own weird way. In this regard, he's no different than high draft picks in football, hockey, American football, or basketball, where this same argument also happens on these pages.
397:- Murtoa, I hear your concern about draft publicity. I live in hockey-mad Canada, where in the middle of the 2008-2009 NHL season, we not only know who are the top prospects for the 2009 draft, but the NHL's Central Scouting Bureau has long since released their preliminary ranking for the 2010 draft. But I don't think the absence of articles on previous draftees is necessarily what ought to be guiding us, in as much as consensus is ever-shifting and developing here. You're right — I don't know whether Stephen Hill or Jack Watts will go on to footy glory, just like I have no advance knowledge that
410:
case for every junior hockey player or college ball player or regional footballer, but it will be each year for at least a few. Frankly, Matilda, you make a reasonable suggestion. The vast majority of these similar articles nominated today are lacking sources and, from a somewhat cursory search, I believe that it will not be possible to source many of them in a satisfactory manner. Others have already been sourced, and at least a couple of others appear that they could be. Part of the problem is that
364:
to make no AFL appearances. On that basis, why should this year's crop be hoisted above their claims? Or do you think devoted footy wikipedians will actually go through the backlog, pointing to the news articles at the time and resurrect their notability? I don't know whether the subject of this article will go on to be a notable AFL player, and neither do you. And when he does, I'll have no problems with his notability. But until then, I think it would be crystal balling to presume otherwise.
471:
considered the highest amateur level of this sport — I don't claim to be an Aussie rules expert — in which case he would also pass WP:ATHLETE. The existence of a professional level of a sport does not automatically exclude amateurs in that same sport. If I'm incorrect about the nature of those competitions, my apologies, in which case see 1) above. 3) The requirement is that the sources be intellectually independent and independent
363:
have attracted a deal of publicity, and he would be one where you would argue that if he didn't go on to become a big star it might actually be noteworthy. But I still think there's a reasonable yardstick provided by the wholesale absence of the heralded draft picks of years gone by who have gone on
575:
This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's articles are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. He may be on the list, but "every year" we see some of these players simply making no
409:
in the NBA. But I do know that they all have had sufficient column inches and pixels devoted to their amateur careers that they are already notable, for their performance to date, for the resulting impact on their draft position, and soon enough for their entry into the pro ranks. That won't be the
316:
His career may be promising, but it could just as quickly fade into relative nothingness having never played at the highest level. Is
Knowledge full of hundreds of articles of failed draft picks from years gone by, no doubt all of whom received breathless coverage for a few days in footy columns?
249:
per VS - WP:Athlete not met if he is not fully professional ... This criterion trumps basic notability criteria if that criteria are being applied to that person's sporting career - refs in the paper to sporting achievements need to be subject to the lens of WP:Athlete - in this case the refs are
414:
appears to have turned into yet another third rail of
Knowledge, despite anyone's best efforts to the contrary. Similarly, it's always been easier to nominate an article for deletion than to search for sources, particularly since everyone has their own ideas about what constitutes notability (a
470:
is subservient to both of these, and definitely does not "trump" basic notability criteria. In fact, the introduction to the additional criteria of WP:BIO, where WP:ATHLETE resides, is quite specific in this regard. 2) I'm assuming that either the WAFL or the Under-18 Championships could be
557:
Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for
Fremantle next season. -
489:
is among the most slavish to the "x is a professional sport, therefore amateurs can't ever be notable" argument, and that argument was well-represented in these discussions. Regardless, those articles where proper sourcing could be found and included —
359:. Footy-mad papers like the Herald-Sun go into a blather at this time of the year, because the draft gives a bit of footy news at a slow-footy time of year. And that leads to the trumpeting of a batch of new potential stars. Some, like
151:
per nom (I was the second, policy violating, PRODder). There is absolutely no guarantee that the subject will ever meet WP:ATHLETE. While the article is referenced, one of those articles is not independent, being the official
174:
183:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject
92:
87:
96:
79:
278:
125:
478:
225:
533:
597:
the article is well referenced. An athlete can be notable even if they do not play in a fully professional league if they have received enough coverage.
83:
382:
75:
67:
606:
585:
567:
548:
523:
450:
389:
373:
347:
326:
308:
290:
268:
254:
240:
215:
194:
165:
142:
61:
136:
as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --
335:
334:
so who's crystal balling now? The news articles exist NOW, not in the future. He's a #3 draft pick, not a 5th rounder. Read
17:
178:
338:
to see what other people think WP:ATHLETE intends to mean... and generally they all disagree with
Matilda's approach.
153:
621:
398:
262:: deletion creates a double standard if there are articles on US college athletes who are also at amateur level.
36:
620:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
360:
55:
286:
209:
544:
482:
355:
I acknowledge the existence of current news articles on the subject. But there's hints for me of
602:
563:
343:
304:
236:
190:
477:
It might be enlightening for those commenting here to read through discussions 22 through 27 at
458:
1) The article is referenced with multiple secondary source materials, in which case he passes
467:
446:
434:
411:
137:
133:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
581:
519:
369:
322:
317:
I'd guess "no", because they were never notable. I'd recommend we wait in this case as well
51:
486:
282:
204:
540:
499:
161:
598:
559:
503:
459:
356:
339:
300:
232:
186:
507:
495:
442:
386:
385:'s mistress has been filling the Sydney Morning Herald's column inches for years.--
251:
113:
577:
515:
463:
438:
430:
406:
365:
318:
264:
511:
491:
402:
157:
415:
general observation, VS, and not in any way a comment pointed toward you).
156:
site and the other two are arguably linked to the annual drama around the
250:
all about his sporting career, he is not notable for anything else. --
132:
Was prodded (incorrectly on the second occasion) - Appears to fail
485:
draftees were tagged for deletion. I cite these examples because
614:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
202:. The article is updated with more info... Why delete?
120:
109:
105:
101:
510:— ended up being kept, while those lacking sourcing —
279:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
479:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 12
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
624:). No further edits should be made to this page.
226:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
534:list of Athletes-related deletion discussions
8:
576:impact and reverting to relative obscurity.
532:: This debate has been included in the
224:: This debate has been included in the
160:and not of any lasting significance. --
277:: This debate has been included in the
7:
76:Stephen Hill (Australian footballer)
68:Stephen Hill (Australian footballer)
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
607:08:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
586:06:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
568:01:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
549:20:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
524:21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
451:20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
390:05:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
374:05:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
348:15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
327:11:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
309:09:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
291:00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
269:23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
255:22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
241:14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
216:13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
195:12:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
166:11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
143:11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
62:02:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
401:will be a star in the NHL,
48:. No consensus to delete.
641:
154:Australian Football League
481:, where a number of high
179:Basic notability criteria
617:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
361:Jack Watts (footballer)
177:articles do you need?
185:) trumps WP:Athlete.
140:
44:The result was
551:
537:
293:
243:
229:
138:
632:
619:
538:
528:
273:
230:
220:
212:
207:
123:
117:
99:
60:
34:
640:
639:
635:
634:
633:
631:
630:
629:
628:
622:deletion review
615:
405:in the NFL, or
210:
205:
119:
90:
74:
71:
49:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
638:
636:
627:
626:
610:
609:
591:
590:
589:
588:
552:
526:
500:Patrick Nyarko
476:
473:of the subject
453:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
311:
294:
271:
257:
244:
218:
197:
168:
130:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
637:
625:
623:
618:
612:
611:
608:
604:
600:
596:
593:
592:
587:
583:
579:
574:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
556:
553:
550:
546:
542:
535:
531:
527:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:Sean Franklin
501:
497:
493:
488:
484:
480:
474:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
425:
413:
408:
404:
400:
396:
393:
392:
391:
388:
384:
383:Richard Pratt
380:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
362:
358:
354:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
330:
329:
328:
324:
320:
315:
312:
310:
306:
302:
299:per Matilda.
298:
295:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
270:
267:
266:
261:
258:
256:
253:
248:
245:
242:
238:
234:
227:
223:
219:
217:
214:
213:
208:
201:
198:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
147:
146:
145:
144:
141:
135:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
57:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
616:
613:
594:
572:
554:
529:
514:— were not.
508:Chance Myers
496:Julius James
472:
455:
426:
399:John Tavares
394:
378:
352:
331:
313:
296:
274:
263:
259:
246:
221:
203:
199:
182:
173:. How many
170:
148:
131:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
407:Greg Paulus
357:WP:NOT#NEWS
200:Strong keep
171:Strong Keep
52:Malinaccier
512:Josh Lambo
492:Pat Phelan
468:WP:ATHLETE
435:WP:ATHLETE
412:WP:ATHLETE
283:Erwin85Bot
206:Ruennsheng
134:WP:Athlete
541:Raven1977
403:Tim Tebow
162:Mattinbgn
158:AFL draft
599:Icewedge
560:Allied45
487:WP:FOOTY
340:The-Pope
301:McWomble
187:The-Pope
126:View log
573:Comment
443:Djsasso
395:Comment
387:Matilda
379:Comment
353:comment
332:comment
252:Matilda
233:Grahame
93:protect
88:history
578:Murtoa
516:Mlaffs
506:, and
460:WP:BIO
437:, and
429:Meets
366:Murtoa
319:Murtoa
314:Delete
297:Delete
265:Harro5
247:Delete
211:(Talk)
149:Delete
121:delete
97:delete
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
603:talk
595:Keep
582:talk
564:talk
555:Keep
545:talk
530:Note
520:talk
464:WP:N
462:and
456:Keep
447:talk
439:WP:V
431:WP:N
427:Keep
370:talk
344:talk
336:this
323:talk
305:talk
287:talk
281:. --
275:Note
260:Keep
237:talk
222:Note
191:talk
175:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
56:talk
46:Keep
539:--
536:.
483:MLS
441:. -
228:.
605:)
584:)
566:)
547:)
522:)
502:,
498:,
494:,
466:—
449:)
433:,
372:)
346:)
325:)
307:)
289:)
239:)
193:)
164:\
139:VS
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
601:(
580:(
562:(
543:(
518:(
445:(
368:(
342:(
321:(
303:(
285:(
235:(
231:—
189:(
181:(
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.