Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Savage

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Savage

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 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per non, fails WP:ATHLETE. Paste ^Talk 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:55, 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) 15:09, 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 Having played for Dandenong Stingrays in an under 18 competition, doesn't confer notability. Neither does being the 75th rated in a group of potential AFL players. Being in that group suggests he has promise, but to go further at this stage requires use of a crystal ball. Murtoa (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE.Yobmod (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:09, 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) 01:23, 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.