Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Hunt

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]

Taylor Hunt

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) 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Claim of notability is crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Being one of about 70 people selected to play in the only professional Australian rules football league in the world, is notable. Needs sources, hence I tagged it a unreferenced. The-Pope (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being selected is not notability. WP:ATHLETE required the person to have competed at the highest professional level. Until this this article is purely crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His track record to date is playing in the TAC Cup, which is not notable, and being listed in the draft as a potential AFL player. He may go onto play in the AFL, but that success - and notability - at this stage simply isn't guaranteed. A significant number of these draft picks don't progress to become AFL footballers and at this stage there's no reason to treat this subject any differently. Murtoa (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Yobmod (talk) 19:29, 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) 01:08, 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 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the same reasons as we've already argued fifty times before. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And the reality is those arguments have failed in several cases with this year's draft. Murtoa (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims to notability are pure crystal-ball gazing. Rather than making blanket claims about conclusions, WP:AFL would be better served bringing their notability guidelines with other professional sports and WP:ATHLETE. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:58, 11 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.