Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Goldsack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was keep (appears to meet WP:BIO, and nomination withdrawn). Orderinchaos 05:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tyson Goldsack
Delete. "1 Game, 0 Goals"... is that notable enough? Aditionally the article has no third-party sources (only the own team's website). It weakly meet some of WP:BIO criteria. Rjgodoy 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn. I still think the article is unencyclopedic, but I would rather not to utter any comment about it. Rjgodoy 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep He has played for a team at the highest level of his sport {being the AFL). I'd say that satisfies WP:BIO. Wildthing61476 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The criteria your refer are not absolute, indeed "meeting one or more of them does not guarantee that a subject should be included" (from WP:BIO). Rjgodoy 15:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Doing a little more looking into this, the 1 game he has played was his first ever in the AFL. He is in his first year in the AFL as well, hence only the 1 game. Wildthing61476 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. So, in your opinion, he is notable because he will be notable? Rjgodoy 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment He's notable because he IS notable per consensus for athletes from every sport, he IS notable. There are other athletes who appeared in one game in their respective sports. Wildthing61476 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
- He may be not notable because he may be not notable. That is a tautology, per law of identity.
- Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists doesn't prove that the article in question should also exist (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).
- Let's argue based upon the individual subject, not the subject's class.
- Comment
- Comment He's notable because he IS notable per consensus for athletes from every sport, he IS notable. There are other athletes who appeared in one game in their respective sports. Wildthing61476 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. So, in your opinion, he is notable because he will be notable? Rjgodoy 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Doing a little more looking into this, the 1 game he has played was his first ever in the AFL. He is in his first year in the AFL as well, hence only the 1 game. Wildthing61476 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The criteria your refer are not absolute, indeed "meeting one or more of them does not guarantee that a subject should be included" (from WP:BIO). Rjgodoy 15:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Rjgodoy 23:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Keep: Never mind just WP:BIO - overwhelming consensus for every sport, across the board, is that playing so much as a single game at the top level of a team sport qualifies. The team's website is certainly reliable for confirming the ID and background of its own players. RGTraynor 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Playing at the highest level of a professional sport is indeed a notable accomplishment, puts you in the 99.9th percentile --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep While I agree that WP:BIO for athletes is not absolute and should not automatically confer notability on a subject, the fact that the subjects professional career has just started makes it worthwhile keeping, at least for now. If the subject was retired from professional sport I may feel differently. I am aware this argument breaches WP:CRYSTAL but seems to me the common sense option given that if it is deleted, as the season progresses, when can the article be re-created, after 2 games, 10 games, a full season? -- Mattinbgn/ talk 02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- A full season sound right... but I suppose there will be no consensus for that. Rjgodoy 00:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll go with a weak keep here. This guy's just off the bench in a pro-league, as far as I can tell, and hope he does well. Generally I consider players in pro sports leagues to be notable if they get off the bench - but they have to be in the pros, and they have to actually play. Revisit in a few months. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Google News Archives has some coverage of him and he meets the criteria of a player in a fully professional league. It is highly likely that he will get more games. Capitalistroadster 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, meets our minimum criteria, and it is not surprising that sports stars have an article as soon as they cross this threshold as many people will have known of them as they went through the ranks to reach our minimum criteria. John Vandenberg 15:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:BIO criteria - played one game at highest level of the sport. Orderinchaos 19:58, 25 May 2007 (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.
