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 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Gillies (Australian footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - my own personal feeling is that Australian rules football is popular enough in this part of the world that a 33rd draft pick is still notable. The media will commentate on players who are less notable than this guy. He's being paid a good wage to be a fulltime football player, so he is a professional. It is likely that he will spend a year or two in the seconds before getting into the AFL. (and I think that a VFL player is notable). - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:ATHLETE VFL players (and those in other leagues below AFL post-1990) are not generally notable and there would be plenty of 33rd draft picks in the AFL who have quickly faded into obscurity. Let's wait to see if he actually plays a single game in the AFL before we declare his notability. Having played in an under 18 competition doesn't confer notability. Neither does being in a group of players who may or may not in future play at AFL level.Murtoa (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Claim of notability is crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Being one of about 70 people selected to play in the only professional Australian rules football league in the world, is notable. Needs sources, hence I tagged it a unreferenced. The-Pope (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Being selected is not notability. WP:ATHLETE required the person to have competed at the highest professional level. Until this this article is purely crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:Athlete. If being selective of the draft makes him notable, then add the sources to prove it - then he would even pass WP:GNG.Yobmod (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:08, 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 Geelong next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:07, 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) 06:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - please nominate them all together in future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have learned through experience that mass noms are highly likely to be thrown out on procedural grounds. Individual nominations are the only sensible alternative, annoying as they are. Reyk _YO! 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The other alternative would have been to either group them (early picks/late picks or with refs/without refs), or nominate 3 or 4 only, see what the outcomes are, then nominate or keep the others based on the outcomes of those intial few. But we're almost through this batch of 16... I'm sure if they want to look hard enough they can find some more.The-Pope (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice to read someone else who understands AfD's work best as singular nominations (especially where there are several initial creators) --VS ^talk 07:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• question addressed to those who know the sport--on the average, as a general rule, of the people in this position, how many of them will actually play a league game? If almost all of them do, then there is an argument for making the articles. Otherwise, I'm somewhat dubious, and we'd need to look at special cases if thre's anything particular to be said. DGG (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer From 2007, 7 of the picks 30-39 have played. From 2006 it's all 10. From 2005 it's 9 of the picks in the 30s. In 2004 it was all 10. Some of these have only played 1 or 2 games, some have since been delisted, and some were father-son rule selections (not really 30ish picks, but pre-draft picks that "cost" a pick in the 30s). The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 9 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.