Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kreuzer

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. W.marsh 18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Kreuzer

Matthew Kreuzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable junior footballer who does not meet WP:BIO for athletes. He is an amateur who has not played at the highest level possible (yet). In terms of his future as a professional athlete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. He has not even been drafted yet, let alone signed with a professional club or played a AFL game. Mattinbgn\ ^talk 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 13:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Many good sources out there. He is going to be the number-one pick in the draft. Its obvious he is going to play AFL football. Hes a keeper. Twenty Years 13:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete When he plays a senior AFL game he gets an article. The notability rules are quite clear on this. Nick mallory 14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Nick mallory. The referenced medal for amateur sport doesn't confer sufficient notability to meet WP:BIO. Accounting4Taste 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Nick Mallory. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that Kreuzer does not meet the Athlete criteria of WP:BIO, however, it is explicitly stated that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". The wikipedia general notability guideline states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". I feel that the article in the Herald Sun, a major australian newspaper, justifies inclusion under general notability guidelines. Dr bab 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dr bab, this is a rare exception to the rule. See also Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if you still don't get it. Burntsauce 17:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep given that he is widely tipped to be drafted and we would have to recreate the article anyway. If for some reason he isn't drafted we can look at it again. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Notability is forever. It can't and shouldn't be retrospectively reviewed. Either the subject is notable now and the article is kept now and forever, or (as is my view) the subject is not notable and the article is deleted (or userfied) to be recreated once notability is established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Lots of sources; [1], [2], [3]. Hell, just look at the number of Herald Sun articles on him [4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaiderAspect (talk • contribs) 12:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Someone has just jumped the gun on giving him an article. It is rather poorly written, and acts as more of a discussion on the top of the draft than Kreuzer himself, but than can be easily rectified. In fact, I'll do that now. Bryce Gibbs had an article for at least a couple of months before he was drafted. Aspirex 09:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Further to my above comment, I have now edited the article. The paragraph about his junior football essentially never has to be edited again. Aspirex 10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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.