Deletion of Stephen Hill (Australian footballer)

Comment: Meets , , and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ATHLETE||WP:V)

Comment: I acknowledge the existence of current news articles on the subject.  But there's hints for me of #NEWS.  Footy-mad papers like the Herald-Sun go into a blather at this time of the year, because the draft gives a bit of footy news at a slow-footy time of year.  And that leads to the trumpeting of a batch of new potential stars.  Some, like Jack Watts (footballer) have attracted a deal of publicity, and he would be one where you would argue that if he didn't go on to become a big star it might actually be noteworthy.  But I still think there's a reasonable yardstick provided by the wholesale absence of the heralded draft picks of years gone by who have gone on to make no AFL appearances.  On that basis, why should this year's crop be hoisted above their claims?  Or do you think devoted footy wikipedians will actually go through the backlog, pointing to the news articles at the time and resurrect their notability?  I don't know whether the subject of this article will go on to be a notable AFL player, and neither do you.  And when he does, I'll have no problems with his notability.  But until then, I think it would be crystal balling to presume otherwise
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 1) The article is referenced with multiple secondary source materials, in which case he passes  and  —  is subservient to both of these, and definitely does not "trump" basic notability criteria. In fact, the introduction to the additional criteria of , where  resides, is quite specific in this regard. 2) I'm assuming that either the WAFL or the Under-18 Championships could be considered the highest amateur level of this sport — I don't claim to be an Aussie rules expert — in which case he would also pass . The existence of a professional level of a sport does not automatically exclude amateurs in that same sport. If I'm incorrect about the nature of those competitions, my apologies, in which case see 1) above. 3) The requirement is that the sources be intellectually independent and independent ''of the subject'', which the article on the AFL site satifies. 4) Draft drama and breathless coverage notwithstanding, notability is not temporary — if his prospects in his sport are such that he was such a high draft pick and did receive coverage in multiple sources as a result, then he's notable whether he's ultimately successful in a professional career or not. In fact, a high draft pick that fails to have a professional career is separately notable is their own weird way. In this regard, he's no different than high draft picks in football, hockey, American football, or basketball, where this same argument also happens on these pages.It might be enlightening for those commenting here to read through discussions 22 through 27 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 12, where a number of high Major League Soccer|MLS draftees were tagged for deletion. I cite these examples because  is among the most slavish to the "x is a professional sport, therefore amateurs can't ever be notable" argument, and that argument was well-represented in these discussions. Regardless, those articles where proper sourcing could be found and included — Pat Phelan, Julius James, Patrick Nyarko, Sean Franklin, and Chance Myers — ended up being kept, while those lacking sourcing — Josh Lambo — were not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N||WP:ATHLETE||WP:FOOTY)