Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Motlop

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Motlop

Despite claims to the contrary simply being picked in the draft does not make this person notable and therefore he 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. Once he has played at the fully professional level of this sport he can be recreated but until then this is just a crystal ball AFL stub. --VS ^talk 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You are correct - being drafted does not make him notable. It's the 10 or so articles about him that make him notable. Did you do the good faith check for references (as suggested in WP:BEFORE) before listing here? This article was tagged as unreferenced for less than 8 hours (overnight in Aust) before being listed here. How about giving us a chance to reference it before we have to waste time here? The-Pope (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Claim of notability is crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Time spent claiming multiple sources exist would be better spent adding them to the article.Yobmod (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 4 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 Geelong next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:06, 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) 06:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please nominate them all together in future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - note that I have recently expanded and updated the article with some references. The-Pope (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the subject has done anything of note yet other than having spent some time training with notable footballers. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. If the creators of these articles were to wait until the subject actually met the widely accepted notability guidelines before creating such articles, perhaps we would not all be here "wasting our time" -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:40, 10 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.