Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Casboult


 * 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. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 03:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Levi Casboult

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

rookie listed Australian Rules football player with no senior games. does not satisfy WP:NSPORTS. has some coverage for a car accident but that was just a routine news event and Wikipedia is not the news. lacks other significant coverage required for notability. (the booze cruise was also a news event and the coverage Casboult got from it was not non trivial.) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep General notability guidelines for Australian rules football continue to present a grey area with regard to players who are on a senior/rookie list (and are therefore eligible to be selected at any time), but who are yet to make a debut. Previous discussions have occurred on similar articles, with consensus to keep; refer to Articles_for_deletion/Jaxson_Barham. Aspirex (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That he is on a list and might play a game is crystal ball thinking and that is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. And previous AFDs with a consensus to delete. There is also some major fundamental differeneces between this AFD and the one you have linked. All the players on that other list were selected in the main draft, some with very high picks (2,4,5). Casboult was selected in the Rookie draft. All those players were on the main list and were eligble for selection at any time. Casboult is on the Rookie list so could not be selected without a change of status. None of those players had spend a season on a list and not been selected. Casboult spent the season on the Rookie list without being promoted or played. Some more relevent AFDs to compare this one with would be for a player who has been listed for a season but not played, eg Bryce Retzlaff - Articles for deletion/Bryce Retzlaff or for a Rookie listed player, eg Liam Bedford - Articles for deletion/Liam Bedford. Both ended delete. Also a more relevent precedence is the unconteseted Prod deletions of Rookie listed players with no senior games, eg Daniel Bass, Daniel Webb (Australian rules footballer), Jordan Johns. Note also that two articles of the players in the AFD you linked have since been deleted, showing the flaw in the argument that they might become notable, ie that they might not. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Whilst he's on the list, I'd keep. If he gets delisted without making his AFL debut, then redirect to the team historical player list.  I personally don't create articles for rookie list players unless they either play (and the AFL have tweaked the rules to make the change of status very easy to do these days) or have had significant coverage... and I'd say that the car accident/booze cruise issues were bordering on significant coverage.The-Pope (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * explanatory comment - the lists we are talking about are very tightly controlled. Each Nov/Dec the 16/17/18 teams (it's expanding over the next few years) select players to fill their 38 man senior list and their 8 man rookie list (22 players play each week).  There are no other ways to bring players into the system.  No mid-year topup, no local zone system, just the draft. Some people think being drafted alone is notable.  I  have thought that way in the past... probably less so now.  To play, you have to be moved from the rookie list to the senior list and this requires either a mid-season retirement or a senior list player moving to the longterm injury list (>8 weeks) to open up a spot.  The AFL however also allows a "free" upgrade midyear of one rookie and some other loopholes about number of players on the veterans list, so mid-year rookie elevations are very commonplace in recent years.The-Pope (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The notability criterion for professional athletes is already set very low. Lowering it further for the sake of one sport - not sure why AFL needs to be is not in the wider interests of the project. Other sports appear to be comfortable with the "one game" rule, I am not sure why the AFL needs to be treated differently. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and to be honest it is looking exceedingly unlikely that he will ever play a professional game. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2010 (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.