Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Thompson


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wade Thompson

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

Non notable sportsman- a google search throws up blogs and stats sites but nothing reliable. Falls foulf of WP:RS, WP:N and WP:NPOV. HJMitchell   You rang?  11:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should not delete the article because of him not being a non notable sportsman. Ive seen articles that who wasn't a notable sportsman and had been around for a few years just; just add infomation to it. I think the article will be re-done again and deleting it would be a waste of time.

GuineaPigWarrior     No I didn't ring  21:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment he is either notable or not. The page can be protected against re-creation.  Drawn Some (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Going delete as per WP:ATHLETE. Somebody change my mind? If he's a pro athlete, we need more sources. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Going with keep per Pope's findings. I'll let an admin defer to snow, don't yet agree with it. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy SNOW Keep he is notable by WP:ATHLETE, he's played 2 games this year (out of 6 rounds) in the top level, fully professional Australian Football League. And learn how to filter out the stats/forum sites for your google searches The-Pope (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope, we can't WP:SNOW with no agreement. Yet.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well as I've totally disproved all of the arguments for deletion (WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:N/WP:ATHLETE) I don't think that this has a Snowballs chance in Adelaide of being deleted, unless you want to rewrite WP:ATHLETE. AFDs should be researched before they are nominated. "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." Yes, a Google search found the non-RS sources, but even a simple Google News search would have proved his notability from RSs.  A clean up tag on his page could then help to solve the NPOV and any other issues, if you couldn't edit it yourself. The-Pope (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, and checking the Google link you provided, I think that's good enough. Thanks for changing my mind. =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, played at the top level of Australian Rules Football, meets WP:ATHLETE. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep, should never have been nominated in the first place. He has played two games for the Port Adelaide Football Club in a fully professional league. Jevansen (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2009 (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.