Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Flynn

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 of the debate was no clear consensus to delete, so keep. --Ezeu 22:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Flynn[edit]

non-notable, only played one professional game in the Victorian Football League in 1903, no potential of expanding, Delete Lovemetendernow 17:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification he played in the Victorian Football League a competition now known today as the Australian Football League (not the one currently known as the VFL). R o gerthat ^Talk 06:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. r3m0t ^talk 18:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Essendon are a very notable club but we would need more than one game to establish notability. Unless we can get more verifiable info about him, Delete. Capitalistroadster 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 20:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, it's not really vanity, is it? I mean, I doubt Mr Flynn wrote the article himself, given that he's almost certainly dead having played over 100 years ago. --Canley 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Since it's an article I created (some time ago I might add) I would prefer to see it kept, but it is an established part of WP:BIO that anyone who has played 1 senior game (as the minimum qualification) of football with a professional club is notable. That said I have found it hard to dig up much information on Flynn, with his date of birth and death hard to come by (it would take some research with the department of deaths & births probably). So technically he was notable but little chance of expansion (no-one alive today saw him play). R o gerthat ^Talk 06:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it meets the (stupid) criteria. Playing one top-level game of anything makes you 793 times more important than the hundreds of US college "athletes" clogging up the works. -- GWO
Week keep per WP:BIO. In the absence of any specific inclusion criteria for AFL footballers, I'd err on the side of caution and keep him. Comment - I would encourage the development of a notability test specifically for AFL bios, along the lines of that at WP:Cricket, under Criteria guideline for article inclusion. (or WP:Music) -- I@n ≡ talk 08:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. He is borderline in my thinking, but he definitely meets the criteria, and we apparently keep players that haven't even played one game yet. Having said that, if there really is no possibility for expansion, the article is pointless - hopefully someone can expand it. JPD (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While I am not a fan of substubs like this, it does meet the keep criteria. --Roisterer 14:10, 9 May 2006 (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.