Deletion of Stephen Hill (Australian footballer)

Comment: Murtoa, I hear your concern about draft publicity. I live in hockey-mad Canada, where in the middle of the 2008-2009 NHL season, we not only know who are the top prospects for the 2009 draft, but the NHL's Central Scouting Bureau has long since released their preliminary ranking for the 2010 draft. But I don't think the absence of articles on previous draftees is necessarily what ought to be guiding us, in as much as consensus is ever-shifting and developing here. You're right — I don't know whether Stephen Hill or Jack Watts will go on to footy glory, just like I have no advance knowledge that John Tavares (ice hockey)|John Tavares will be a star in the NHL, Tim Tebow in the NFL, or Greg Paulus in the NBA. But I do know that they all have had sufficient column inches and pixels devoted to their amateur careers that they are already notable, for their performance to date, for the resulting impact on their draft position, and soon enough for their entry into the pro ranks. That won't be the case for every junior hockey player or college ball player or regional footballer, but it will be each year for at least a few. Frankly, Matilda, you make a reasonable suggestion. The vast majority of these similar articles nominated today are lacking sources and, from a somewhat cursory search, I believe that it will not be possible to source many of them in a satisfactory manner. Others have already been sourced, and at least a couple of others appear that they could be. Part of the problem is that  appears to have turned into yet another third rail of Wikipedia, despite anyone's best efforts to the contrary. Similarly, it's always been easier to nominate an article for deletion than to search for sources, particularly since everyone has their own ideas about what constitutes notability (a general observation, VS, and not in any way a comment pointed toward you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATHLETE)