Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Sully

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 clearly no reason to delete, WP:SNOW. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damien Sully

Prod contested by article creator. Football umpire. Herostratus 08:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I'm not sure if you realise that AFL is the top of Australian rules football. An umpire at that level is definitely notable, I'm sure I can quote WP:BIO on that as well. Also note that the article is entirely verifiable as well, as there is plenty of info about this on the net. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Following the lead of many of the major codes (see the A-League, many of the referees there do) and the List of Australian rules football umpires. It's even referenced, so no problems with verifying the facts. WP:BIO states "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." There is absolutely no doubt that umpires are "sportspeople", and they are participating in a fully professional league. I think that the intended meaning of "played" should be assumed to be "participated in". Unless you're denying that the AFL is a "fully professional league". Surely an umpire who has performed at the highest level, in a "fully professional league", should have an article if "articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate". Daniel.Bryant 09:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I'm not really convinced that an umpire is notable by default. Being a Yank, I compare umpires to the ones that we have in the MLB and the referees in NFL, NHL and NBA and we scarce have articles on them (unless they blow a really bad call). I don't think being an umpire in the highest level of a sport should equate to notability. (The vast, vast majority would fail the 100 year test right off the bat) There should be more to what they have done to establish their notability. 205.157.110.11 09:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Sully was award VFL Umpire of the year and is absolutely notable - without question - Glen 10:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - while he's umpired at a national level in what is almost the national religion of parts of Australia, this has only been for ten games. Most of his umpiring has been at VFL (which in this case means the Victorian competition, not the old name of the AFL, which is an important distinction). The award being cited by another editor is at the state level (sub-national), where most of his experience is drawn from. A achievement, nonetheless, but less of one than is being suggested here. Frankly, I think there would be many more notable umpires than this gentleman, but there may just be enough of a reason to keep him in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Daniel. -- I@n 10:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: We have a few baseball umpire articles and I wouldn't vote to delete others if they were added. Major leagues only of course as is the case here. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While it is not completely clear that umpires qualify as automatically as players, we have set a reasonably low bar in saying that being on the team list is enough. In my experience, football umpires usually become fairly well known even without making particularly notorious decisions (this may reflect the fact that the nature of many of their decisions is such that they are always slightly controversial). Verifiability is not a problem, so there's no harm in keeping it. JPD (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, umpire at the elite level in a high profile national sport, which I think is a category of general notability. 2004 VFL umpire of the year winner, to ice the cake and leave no doubt in this case. --bainer (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Top-level umpires are notable. Rebecca 22:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has umpired at the top of his sport more than once... Overall seems like a decent article, and well referenced, why bust him out just because? If he gets better its all good but the current article is not violating any policies. Ansell 06:33, 19 September 2006 (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.