Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neville Jetta

: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 delete. As noted, this player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and even WP:N is shaky, in most articles that mention him, he is merely mentioned briefly or in the context of other places, as one might expect for the 51st pick in the draft. I considered carefully the Keep rationales by User:Hughesdarren and User:Allied45, but eventually assigned them lesser weight due to their rebuttal and the fact that they did not appear to be solidly grounded in policy. That does not mean of course, that the article should not be recreated if he ever gets a game, or if more substantial third-party coverage surfaces.

As always with notability cases, I am happy to userify if someone wants to keep a backup copy of the article around just in case either of the two circumstances above come to pass. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=[[Neville Jetta]]=

:{{la|Neville Jetta}} ([{{fullurl:Neville Jetta|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neville Jetta}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

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)

  • Delete per nom. Any claim to notability at this stage is an an attempt to predict the future. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is one of a combined effort by a couple of editors to delete all articles created on players just drafted into the AFL, with no attempt to allow references to be found. Jetta had a story in the major Melbourne daily printed today. I barely have time to vote on these mass nominations, let alone improve/reference the articles. 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) 12:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per VS - WP:Athlete not met and 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. --Matilda talk 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that you have misunderstood the notability criteria (and even the general, overarching WP:N criteria), otherwise are you really meaning to say that no-one can ever be notable for playing a sport that has a professional league, but they don't play in it? Makes AFDs nice and easy, but I don't think that sort of black and whiteness is the intention of WP:ATHLETE. The-Pope (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that WP:ATHLETE should embrace some flexibility. That's why I would support prominent Aussie Rules 2nd tier players (eg. winners of Magerey or Sandover medals) as meeting the mark. Another example are many SANFL or WAFL players pre 1990, before the AFL came into existence. But simply being picked among 80 hopefuls is another matter in my view. Murtoa (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. McWomble (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Best on ground in the WA Colts grand final - let's call that 4th tier at best - doesn't materially advance his claims in my view. Another AFL hopeful - he might rise to professional athlete notability, but he might not. Simply being in the mix at this stage doesn't make him notable in my view. Murtoa (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Jetta is alrady a notable player at Swan Districts. I'm getting quite disillusioned that the AFL is the only football league that is note-worthy in Australia. There are a myriad of articles on players from the WAFL/VFL/SAFL, should they all be deleted as well? --Hughesdarren (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd argue that since 1990, simply playing in the SANFL, WAFL or VFL doesn't constitute notability, these leagues clearly not at the top tier of the sport, therefore problematic under WP:ATHLETE. However, there would be some who I think justify including eg. winners of the Magarey Medal or Sandover Medal. And I would argue that going back to the 1980s and earlier, many more SANFL and WAFL players would be notable. In those days, while the old VFL was the strongest league, it didn't imply that the best players in the other leagues would trip east to play. Murtoa (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • 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 Melbourne next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • 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) 06:30, 6 December 2008 (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.