Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Brand

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Unanimous consensus that the subject is notable (bar nominator), adequately covered in reliable sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Brand[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Rodney Brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was drafted but never played in the NFL. Being a college player and a member of the 1969 College All-American Team is not enough to show notability. References seem to be mentions in databases, but would be happy to see a longer ref which meets the GNG. JMWt (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best college player. There is no accepted notability standard for college American football players but even WP:CFBPLAYER which is an essay put forward by an interested wikiproject fails to note being an All-American pick. Indeed, it goes on to suggest that a professional career afterwards is more important. Personally I don't accept any special status for student athletes in the USA or anywhere else - they need to meet the standards for the GNG and WP:NSPORTS.
As to your articles, they are interesting but arguably they are (a) local media articles (b) which are short and routine and (c) focus on the successes of a young HS and university athlete. The kind of article that is written about those kinds of athletes in every newspaper everywhere. Don't meet the GNG in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being the BEST player in the nation at center is a hugely significant accomplishment, and All-American is a pass of NCOLLATH (even a third-team selection would do it – but this is not that, neither second-team or even first-team – this is a Consensus All-American). As for the articles, locality is 100% irrelevant, ROUTINE does not apply to people (but rather, to events), and collegiate coverage can absolutely count towards GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's weird given WP:COLLATH expressly discusses the concept of routine coverage with respect to college athletes. Which of the criteria 1-5 of WP:COLLATH are you saying that the subject of this article has met? And how is being on an All-American pick somehow not an event? JMWt (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major NCAA Division I record. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two more sigcov sources: [6] [7]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the references presented by User:BeanieFan11 which show significant coverage of the subject from news publications unaffiliated with the subject and his university (including one reference from the AP, an authority on college sports coverage). I will note that I could not assess the fourth ref as it was blocked by a paywall, but GNG is established even without that one. Frank Anchor 15:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - besides the newspaper articles linked above, Brand also receives SIGCOV in this book (which is already used as a reference on the page). He meets NBASIC. Hatman31 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG with multiple sources significant coverage from multiple publications as the above sources demonstrate. Passing or failing WP:NCOLLATH has no relevance in AfD. Either the subject has the SIGCOV to pass GNG or not. And Brand has it. Alvaldi (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have never deleted an article on a consensus first-team All-American football player and hopefully never will. Given his level of achievement, it is not surprising that he passes WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH (prong 1). Cbl62 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: Your nomination appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of WP:NCOLLATH and also noted that you "would be happy to see a longer ref which meets the GNG." Now that these matters have been cleared up, might you consider withdrawing the nomination so that efforts can be focused elsewhere? Cbl62 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I've no wish to engage in bludgeoning (and only am replying because of the @) but the idea that these kinds of minor media articles from more than 50 years ago somehow meet the GNG is laughable in my opinion. Clearly some here hold sportsmen from the USA to a special standard that would be unacceptable for anyone else. JMWt (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: In your opinion, what type of articles would satisfy GNG for a sportsperson? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt may or may not wish to chime in, but IMO it's indisputable that the following WP:THREE FOUR represent SIGCOV: (1) "He's Genuine All-America Candidate" (feature story about Brand from major metropolitan newspaper [Memphis] outside Arkansas); (2) "Poke, Porker Pocket Big 4 Award" (second feature story about Brand from another major metropolitan newspaper [Tulsa] outside Arkansas); (3) "Rodney Brand Is Porkers' 'Cleanup' Man" (AP feature story on Brand); and (4) "Rod Brand's Game Plan Uncluttered" (UPI feature story on Brand). Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A more recent article on Brand is found here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep typically a college football center doesn't generate any press at all, or very little and not near enough to pass WP:GNG. This appears to be an exception with the numerous sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the reasons stated here by these editors. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's snowing! Jweiss11 (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Passes WP:GNG with multiple sources covering him. -- Dane talk 21:27, 18 February 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodney_Brand&oldid=1140624340"