Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Benjamin

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. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Benjamin

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. --VS ^talk 11:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XBALL and WP:ATHLETE; he needs to play before he's notable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, no he doesn't need to play before he's notable. He needs to satisfy the Basic notability criteria (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) and that trumps WP:Athlete. This is one of a combined effort by a couple of editors to delete all articles created on players just drafted into the AFL, with no attempt to allow references to be found. I barely have time to vote on these mass nominations, let alone improve/reference the articles from the many articles published in WP:RSs over the previous few weeks/months previewing, analysing or profiling the drafted players. The-Pope (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the previous commentators: while he needs to play to be notable by WP:ATHLETE, and while he can become notable by other means, there's no proof that he has become notable by other means. Provide the sources for him passing the basic criteria, and his lack of professional experience will become irrelevant to his notability; but as it is, there's no reason to find this guy notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VS - WP:Athlete not met and 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 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. McWomble (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's played in a lower-rung comp and is no. 71 in a list of AFL hopefuls. Potential star but also statistically a potential flop; at present he's neither. Murtoa (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE, no significant secondary coverage of this person either, as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
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 Kangaroos next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 06:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.