Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hill (Australian footballer)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Hill (Australian footballer)[edit]
- Stephen Hill (Australian footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Was prodded (incorrectly on the second occasion) - 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 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 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 Australian Football League site and the other two are arguably linked to the annual drama around the AFL draft and not of any lasting significance. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. How many news articles do you need? 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) 12:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The article is updated with more info... Why delete? Ruennsheng (Talk) 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 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 all about his sporting career, he is not notable for anything else. --Matilda talk 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: deletion creates a double standard if there are articles on US college athletes who are also at amateur level. Harro5 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Matilda. McWomble (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete His career may be promising, but it could just as quickly fade into relative nothingness having never played at the highest level. Is Wikipedia 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? I'd guess "no", because they were never notable. I'd recommend we wait in this case as well Murtoa (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment 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 this to see what other people think WP:ATHLETE intends to mean... and generally they all disagree with Matilda's approach. The-Pope (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I acknowledge the existence of current news articles on the subject. But there's hints for me of WP:NOT#NEWS. 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 Jack Watts (footballer) 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 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. Murtoa (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 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 Richard Pratt's mistress has been filling the Sydney Morning Herald's column inches for years.--Matilda talk 05:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 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 John Tavares will be a star in the NHL, Tim Tebow in the NFL, or Greg Paulus 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 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 WP:ATHLETE appears to have turned into yet another third rail of Wikipedia, 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 general observation, VS, and not in any way a comment pointed toward you).
- Comment - 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 Richard Pratt's mistress has been filling the Sydney Morning Herald's column inches for years.--Matilda talk 05:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I acknowledge the existence of current news articles on the subject. But there's hints for me of WP:NOT#NEWS. 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 Jack Watts (footballer) 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 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. Murtoa (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment 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 this to see what other people think WP:ATHLETE intends to mean... and generally they all disagree with Matilda's approach. The-Pope (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:V. -Djsasso (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 1) The article is referenced with multiple secondary source materials, in which case he passes WP:BIO and WP:N — WP:ATHLETE 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 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 of the subject, 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.
It might be enlightening for those commenting here to read through discussions 22 through 27 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 12, where a number of high MLS draftees were tagged for deletion. I cite these examples because WP:FOOTY 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 — Pat Phelan, Julius James, Patrick Nyarko, Sean Franklin, and Chance Myers — ended up being kept, while those lacking sourcing — Josh Lambo — were not. Mlaffs (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:08, 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 Fremantle next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:15, 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]
- Keep 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. Icewedge (talk) 08:24, 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.