Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Bennell

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. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. The only comments indicating "keep" seem to argue against the principle of the nomination, and is not rooted in policy. Malinaccier (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Bennell[edit]

Appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. --VS ^talk 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Any claim to notability at this stage is an attempt to predict the future. He is merely on a professional team list with no guarantee of ever playing a game. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of a combined effort by a couple of editors to delete all articles created on players just drafted into the AFL, with no attempt to allow references to be found. Bennell had a story in the major Melbourne daily printed today. I barely have time to vote on these mass nominations, let alone improve/reference the articles. Basic notability criteria (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) trumps WP:Athlete The-Pope (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VS - WP:Athlete not met and 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. --Matilda ^talk 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. McWomble (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May go on to become a massive superstar in the AFL - and equally may make a brave but ultimately flawed bid to enter AFL ranks and retreat to lesser grades. His playing career to date is unremarkable and the fact that he's been given a chance in the draft doesn't in itself confer professional athlete notability. Murtoa (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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 Melbourne next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 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 impact and reverting to relative obscurity. Murtoa (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2008 (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.