Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Trew


 * 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. Non-notable athlete/Non-notable seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Luke Trew

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:Athlete as he never made an appearance in a professional league. He only played reserves football which doesn't make him notable. Crickettragic (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per article, He played a number of AFL reserve games but failed to make it at the highest level. TravellingCari  20:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Failing WP:Athlete is not a valid deletion rationale. WP:Athlete is a supplementary guideline and can be used as a second catchment to retain articles that otherwise fail to meet WP:N.  But failing WP:Athlete, alone is not a deletion rationale.  Abraham Lincoln and Prince both fail WP:Athlete, but they are not deletable.  How about significant coverage in independent reliable sources? Did anyone look for any?  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable. Failing WP:N is enough reason to delete. If someone in the future wants to rewrite an article, with references to all the books, magazines and articles dedicated to this guy's achievements, they can resubmit the article. As the article stands now, it contains only unverified unreferenced claims that don't show the subject's notability. The current article is not worth keeping.-- Lester  23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see that you agree with WP:N. For your reference, it does not agree with you, however. It says "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable."  This means that the onus is on those requesting deletion to search for sources to satisfy WP:N, before declaring that such sources do not exist.  I looked quickly for some (Aussie newspaper archives only), and found these:
 * "Taken at pick 14 in the 1995 national draft, Luke Trew was recruited from the Murray Bushrangers as a key position player. He lasted just one year before being traded to the Western Bulldogs for ruckman Ilija Grgic. He was delisted by the Bulldogs before the start of the 1997 season, but was lucky enough to be rookie-listed by Essendon for that year. He never played a senior AFL game for any of the three clubs. By selecting Trew at pick 14, the Eagles missed out on Barry Hall, Scott Welsh, Paul Licuria and Daniel Chick." Perth Sunday Times Jul 4, 2008
 * West Australian Newspapers Limited Dec 17, 2005
 * Northcote Leader - News Limited Australia (subscription required) Sep 15, 2004
 * Diamond Valley Leader - News Limited Australia - Apr 7, 2004
 * Leader - News Limited Australia Apr 7, 2004
 * Northcote Leader - News Limited Australia - Sep 1, 2004
 * Preston Leader - News Limited Australia - Sep 7, 2005
 * Whittlesea Leader - News Limited Australia - Sep 21, 2005
 *  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Jerry, a few here but when you filter out the false positives, they just confirm that he has been unable to find a permanent team. Has not played. While WP:ATHLETE may not hold to non-athletes, it has been accepted as a general guidelines for non notable athletes to keep Wikipedia from turning into a directory of athletes who have never played. If they're not notable as athletes adn aren't notable under any other guideline, why keep? TravellingCari 02:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern is when people misapply the supplemental notability guidelines as if they are an additional filter that subjects must fit through in order for their article to be kept. Prior to my objection above, nobody had even mentioned that they attempted to determine if this subject was notable under the general notability guideline.  For all we knew, he might have been a former child sitcom star, or could be a famous chef or architect.  All we saw above was "this subject fails WP:Athlete, so delete".  Even athletes who have extraordinary lackluster careers can be notable if they are the subject of numerous non-trivial mentions in reliable independent sources.  I was just trying to steer this discussion toward relevant argumentation that would make closing easier.  I don;t care whether this article is deleted or not; I just care that the process is executed properly.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, read over Articles for deletion/Alex Nimo (3rd nomination).  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * May be just me, but I would find it frustrating to have to jump through 40 hoops if an article asserted notability in one field, we'll use athlete here, that at AfD I'd have to judge it not on that but also all the other notability guidelines. Where's the limit. If he had published one article, would we have to judge him against WP:PROF as well? Hell in this case the article itself essentially said he wasn't notable. There are athletes who are notable, amateur ones who receive press coverage, minor leagues who are notable for s omething else. But there was no evidence he was notable. And yes I googled before I !voted. I didn't link the lack of results because the article itself said exactly why it wasn't notable. That's just my .02 TravellingCari  03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may indeed find it frustrating, but also understand that for the people who wrote the article, it may be equally frustrating. The answer to your question is absolutely no, there is no limit as to how many notability guidelines may be applied to a given subject, and none of them bypass WP:N.  If a former child star becomes an opera-singing, tennis-playing lottery winner and discovers the cure to gallstones while teaching chemistry at the local university and writes it in his memoirs right after writing a screenplay for a Jaws Meets the Jetsons movie, we would indeed have alot of work to do to prove he was non-notable.  Perhaps the reason would be that such an interesting person is actually notable. Think of it this way: each notability guideline is a filter, by which an article can be saved from the deletion process.  all of these filters are additive.  It only has to be saved by one such filter to avoid being flushed away.  Just about the only area in wikipedia where we have difficulty with this is soccer-related articles.  It seems the wikiproject members for soccer-related articles want to define their own notability criteria that is more deletionsist in nature, and they seem to want their local consensus to overrride the community consensus on the deletion process.  And perhaps this is not a bad thing.  But the way to do that would be to make a proposal in WP:N to make WPAthlete and/or WP:Footy an exception to the rule.  I seriously doubt such a proosal would pass, but I am sure that to try to force such a policy change through local consensus one AfD at a time is not the way to do it.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Jerry is just arguing for the sake of arguing, he certainly isn't being helpful. Luke Trew has seen more clubs than Tiger Woods and even when he wasn't signed up by a fully professional club he did nothing of note. Seeing as he wasn't a child sitcom star or a famous chef, which I knew before nominating him, I see no reason not to have him deleted. In future though, before I nominate someone, I will be sure investigate whether or not they were the Mayor of Paris on the 0.0000005% chance that he or she was. Crickettragic (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nay, nay, my fine wikipedian friend, I am not arguing for argument sake. I am defending process.  We do not want wikipedia to become a place where editors cluster in masses voting to delete that which they do not like.  We don't want wikipedia to swell and shrink to ebb and tide of recent sentiment.  We have laid down some simple lasting processes which ensure that a fair cautious approach is used to consider deletion of content.  That process requires for target pages to be deleted on the basis of notability, that an honest effort be made to accurately determine if the subject is notable.  This means that we first scrutinize articles by WP:N, if the subject proves to be notable by WP:N, then whammo! We are done.  If it fails WP:N, or is a marginal case, then we can look to see if a one or more specific supplemental notability guideline(s) are applicable to the subject.  If so, and if the subject passes such a supplemental guideline, then whammo! We are done.  Far too often, especially for some reason in soccer-related articles, we find participants want to throw WP:N out, and go straight to WP:Athlete or WP:Footy, and if the subject fails it, kill the article immediately and ignore any reference to WP:N, as if supplemental guidelines somehow trump WP:N.  In this discussion, NOBODY even mentioned any cursory attempt to determine if the subject passed WP:N.  I was duty-bound, as a prospective closing administrator, to comment on that deficiency and relist the discussion.  So please do not impune my motives and ignore that the arguments you and others made were not effective in reaching an acceptable consensus to close this discussion.  Please instead do your due diligence and search google and newspaper archives, and see if this subject is notable and comment on your findings.  That is the only way this discussion can be correctly closed. IMHO.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, clearly fails the inclusion guidelines of WP:ATHLETE, WP:BIO & WP:N, lacking significant coverage and never having competed in a fully professional league (I PRODded him initially). -- Amalthea Talk 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - his most notable act appears to being characterised by the West Australian as a notoriously poor recruit for West Coast. Most references appear to detail his playing time in the Diamond Valley Football League, several rungs below AFL, suggesting he falls quite short of meeting notability guidelines. Murtoa (talk) 06:00, 16 September 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.