Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryce Retzlaff

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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Retzlaff[edit]

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

Contested PROD, Reztlaff has not yet played a senior game for the Brisbane Lions but is verified as being in their current player list. Delete? Keep? Merge? Shirt58 (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet to play a senior game. That he is on the list and might play a game is crystal ball thinking. If he does play a senior game this article can be restored and updated (I'll happily do that myself as I have done for other AFL players making their debut). Till then he hasn't satisfied the WP:NSPORTS guideline, specifically the Australian rules football section. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak Delete~~ Redirect to the player list or team page, because the WP:GNG is not met - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That is more important than WP:ATHLETE or NSPORTS and should be the guideline used in the coming weeks when the inevitable articles are created on players selection in the 2010 AFL Draft. Recreate when significant coverage is gained. I think that redirecting is a better outcome, as it makes recreation upon meeting GNG easier for those of us without a mop, and also keeps the likely search term active, and prevents duplication of article creation. It's what we do for Freo players (ie Ashley Clancy who were delisted without playing a game, no reason why it can't apply to some listed players too. The-Pope (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been removed from the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Accidently placed in the wrong place. --duffbeerforme (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. St Anselm (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice that the article creator contested the prod and then nominated it for deletion. What's going on here? Why was the prod removed? St Anselm (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Comment - I'd say he's had a change in opinion about notability in the months since creating the article, but didn't want it deleted via Prod but discussed here.The-Pope (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To ensure a formal, constructive, and informed deletion discussion took place, which is exactly what is happening here. It's hardly of world-shattering importance, but there are a number of player bios in AFL and NRL squads for players who have not yet made their professional debut (some of which I may well have started). You could call it a test case, of sorts. Or you could call it pointiness on my part, which I agree may well also be a fair assessment. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I was going to say delete, but I think the The-Pope's idea of a redirect is a good one. To reiterate was has been said above, there are occasions when a player will not meet WP:NSPORTS, but will still meet the WP:GNG (eg David Swallow), normally when there is significant coverage about their draft prospects. This article, however, is clearly not one of them, as there is no significant coverage. Jenks24 (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2010 (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.