Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Brown (Australian footballer)


 * 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 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mitchell Brown (Australian footballer)

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

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 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: contrary to claims being made in AFDs and PRODs, WP:ATHLETE is not gospel, just an additional criteria, that does not override the Basic notability criteria of 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. This is a concerted effort by a few editors to wipe out all of the 2008 AFL Draft player articles, regardless of their possibilities, without allowing any time to provide references.  This was AFD'd only 33 minutes after I tagged it as  . This is about the 6th AFD that's come up tonight, plus a bunch more PRODs.  I wish I could have spent tonight improving articles, but I'm too busy voting here.  For those not aware of the AFL, it has a very "closed-door" team squad makeup - the draft is the only way for new, young players to be added to their 38 man senior squads, and each team only selected between 3 and 8 players in the draft.  It's not like they have squads of 100, or they'll be getting another 10 new guys next month - this is it until next year.  This guy was pick 15 - ie first round.  I've added a couple of refs to this article.  Also, be wary of ghits counts on this one - there is another Mitchell Brown who was drafted last year in the AFL, and both seem to also use Mitch Brown a lot too.  The-Pope (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per VS - WP:Athlete not met and I disagree with User:The-Pope - in my view WP:ATHLETE 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 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: deletion creates a double standard if there are articles on US college athletes who are also at amateur level. Harro5 23:51, 1 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 per Matilda. McWomble (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:10, 5 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 Geelong next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:09, 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) 06:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  02:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - we've had all these arguments before, both ways. My only concern is that the title ought to be Mitchell Brown (Australian rules football player). - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - To clarify, the assertion put forward by Matilda (who appears to have retired from Wikipedia in the past few days) that WP:ATHLETE trumps basic notability criteria has been disagreed by others in other AFDs (see here for example) in the past week. From the many similar AFDs to this one that have been closed in the past few days, it's generally come down to the quality and quantity of reliable sources provided that has tipped the scale to keep or delete.  Of the three articles referenced, one could be argued is not independant (published by the AFL website, who are sort of, indirectly, his employers or at least the license issuer/controlling organisation of his employers, but it is signifant coverage of him being a surprise early pick. The second reference is clearly significant coverage, independant and a secondary source. The third is borderline on significant coverage, but again is independant and a secondary source.  So, it's up to others to decide if this is enough for a stub article?   And off topic from the notability discussion, see Talk:Mitchell_Brown_(Australian_footballer) for my views on Richard's page name suggestion. The-Pope (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree on renaming the article Mitchell Brown (Australian rules football player). They are footballers, not football players. WP:AFL tends to use (Australian footballer) unless it clashes with an Australian 'soccer' or rugby union/league player in which case more disambiguation is required and (Australian rules footballer) is used. Jevansen (talk) 23:54, 7 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.