Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaxson Barham

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 Keep. PeaceNT 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxson Barham

Non-notable Australian rules footballer, who does not meet WP:BIO for athletes. He has not yet played a competitive match in a fully professional league. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now until we see how their career in the AFL progresses. If they end up not playing in the seniors, we can reconsider then. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are suggesting hanging off for at least three more months, assuming that games from the NAB Cup are held as being part of a fully professional league (and that the first round will be in February, as it was in 2007). IMO, that's too long a review period: either delete them or keep them as a result of this debate.Ga rr ie 02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are all players picked up in the 2007 AFL Draft. There is no guarantee that they will ever meet the WP:BIO criteria. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to delete them now and recreate them for their first game. A merge to an article on the 2007 AFL draft would also be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: Being a part of the AFL (like the NFL) seems notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all there are really two options here: Delete all or change WP:BIO. Currently, none of these players meet notability criteria. Either get the notability criteria changed - or at least make a case for it at wikiproject AFL - or delete these articles.Ga rr ie 01:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll add a third option: merge to AFL Draft, 2007 or similar. That way they are listed and easily recreated if they play a game.Ga rr ie 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: same reasoning as Rjd0060. As players on current AFL lists, it is reasonable to assume that people will seek to know the information listed about them: viz. position, junior experience, draft selection and then debut where applicable. If their careers tank, then delete them later. Aspirex (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: They are all on senior AFL lists they have made it to the top of their tree. All players on AFL lists should be included. There are many, many more players to delete than just the ones you have listed if you are going by this "theory" that you have created. While we are at it, sources have been added and they ARE verifiable sources. Plus if you want to re-create each of the players you deleted when they play their first game next year go ahead because I wont be....... Charedblack (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: There would possibly be more interest in some of these names than others with senior experience in the lead up to the next season, same every draft. 2 minutes research: NFL - Kevis Coley has not yet played a competitive match in a fully professional league but, along with everyone else on the Cincinnati roster, has a bio; Championship League (not even EPL) - Martin Riley ditto for Wolverhampton. Perhaps it is reasonable that if they are on a club list they may have an entry (i.e. same as happens in practice with NFL & EPL) and if they then never play a senior game they can then be deleted. Lintornterry (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: These people have received considerable media attention throughout the major media outlets in the past few weeks. There is a high chance that these people will all have significant careers within the AFL, and it will be within a day or so that each of their clubs will have pages dedicated to their biographies - in addition with the many articles already dedicated to them. Sure, they might be a bit bland at the moment, but the articles still have much room for improvement. If they are deleted now they'll just be re-posted within a few days/weeks. No point in stalling the inevitable. Dupz (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: As professional AFL players, they are notable. Supported by WikiProject AFL. And, like many others have mentioned, there are many 'non-notable' players (according to your definition) in other leagues/codes. Boomtish (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, it seems likely that many if not all of these people will play sooner rather than later. If, after a year or so, they still haven't made it onto the field at the top tier, then get rid of them. Lankiveil (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all for reason summarised above. These people are not notable ... they may become notable. Until they do then they cannot have the notability of an article. Notability is not temporary. Once you have it, then you have it. Victuallers (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So satisfying WP:N makes them non-notable? Twenty Years 10:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Whilst they may not have played a senior game to meet WP:AFL, it is more than likely that they will infact meet that criteria in the coming AFL season. In the mean-time, they clearly satisfy WP:N given the large number of reliable sources on each of these people who have been drafted by AFL clubs. Might be interesting to note the AfD debate on Matthew Kreuzer, who is also an AFL draftee, which was closed as a Keep. Twenty Years 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Matthew Kreuzer was the likely No. 1 draft pick who had significant media coverage about him not just listed as a potential draft pick. That is not the case with the others. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:17, 29 November 2007 (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.