Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Brownlow Medal


 * 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. Krakatoa Katie  11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Brownlow Medal

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

User:Beamerized worked hard on this article, but it fails the rule that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. We don't have line-by-line itemization of awards for other sports on WP. Shalom Hello 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sufficient information already at Brownlow Medal and List of Brownlow Medal winners. --Dhartung | Talk 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   —Longhair\talk 02:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) `
 * Delete per nom. This is a shame as a lot of hard, dedicated work has gone into creating this good faith contribution.  The creating editor even did the right thing and raised the topic at the appropriate project page.  Unfortunately while Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, neither is it the place for mere tabulated data.  If the data is removed, then all content is adequately covered at Brownlow Medal and List of Brownlow Medal winners.  The result of this AfD may have a bearing on 2006 Brownlow Medal as well. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have articles on other award ceremonies such as the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards and these awards are high profile in Australia. It is not indiscriminate information. We should let User:Beamerized know about this discussion and allow him to transfer the data to userspace. I would suggest that we redirect to the page that advises that Jimmy Bartels won it as there will certainly be people who will look for it. Capitalistroadster 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page does not seem to breach WP:NOT. The collection of statistics is permissible as long as it organised properly.  The page has been organised by year and by rounds of the competition.  A short introduction would tweak it.  At worst, it should be merged into another page, but then that page will become unwieldly. It is definitely notable per Assize 03:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Could use some more content, but there is plenty of that: speculation, favourites and betting, maybe even the fashion? I don't see why it can't be made into a decent article. Recurring dreams 08:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I would like to see this article kept, but it needs considerable work. It is verging towards an indiscriminate collection, but I think Brownlow votes are a big deal in the AFL and are notable enough for Wikipedia. Fashion would be crossing the line into indiscriminate information. My input to the article would be to add some well-considered prose at the start - this means no personal opinions, no peacock/weasel words, fully sourced and neutral. This would give the article more of a sense of an encyclopedic outline of the event rather than just an isolate list of names and numbers. I would also condense the round tables to sheer minimum size, so that the article does not just become a very long block of stats. Maybe even have 2 or 3 rounds side-by-side per line break? Remy B 09:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Dreams a good point: information on speculation/favourites, betting. Could also do with some information on the winner, and a table would look nice with all of the votes/leaders. Could make a nice little GA for someones belt. Good luck. Twenty Years 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I did this page because I felt there was hardly any information apart from the winner and how many votes he got in the general Brownlow article. I guess we can keep it to a minimal by removing the votes section of all rounds. But I think we should leave the leaderboard and as most of you above have stated the add the betting or anything else related towards the night. If this is tagged for deletion I'd like to know why the 2006 one isn't. Beamerized 15:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While I didn't nominate the article for deletion (and probably would not have) I supported (and still support) its deletion for the reasons I gave above. I raised the the 2006 Brownlow Medal article as its future would most likely depend on the consensus reached here.  I saw no reason to tag it for deletion until consensus was reached on the suitability of individual Brownlow Medal counts as a whole.  Tagging the 2006 article for deletion at this stage would seem to me to be verging on a WP:POINT violation, especially given the the likely decision to keep the 2007 article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, like Mattinbgn I dont think the current article is encyclopedic. However, I much is said about the medal each year so I dont doubt it a good article could be written about each years medal; if good references and intro blurb are added I will change my opinion.  Moving this into the WikiProject AFL project space might be a good idea; User:Lonie From 50/2005 Brownlow Medal Guide could also be moved into project space to be sure it isnt abandoned. John Vandenberg 12:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, a source and an intro have been added. John Vandenberg 07:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current structure of the article may or may not be heading towards innapropriate levesl of indiscriminate information, but this is not a deletion issue. I have expressed my doubts concerning including every vote, but it definitely deserves an article. JPD (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is entirely appropriate considering the significance and coverage elsewhere of the Brownlow Medal. Rebecca 05:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep on the article - and all other years in due course, weak keep on the round by round listing of votes. The AFL/Rleague stats site is probably a better place for that sort of detail.The-Pope 03:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep as it seems that this article has got notability and passes other WP policies to deserve a separate page. - Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  09:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- and expand. - Longhair\talk 09:42, 29 September 2007 (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.