Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Brandstater

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. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brandstater[edit]

Tom Brandstater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Is this article really necessary or is someone trying to run up their edit/authoring total? This article is nothing but trivial fluff. This Tom person is not worthy of an encyclopedia article unless we've reduced the level of criteria on Wikipedia. Basically anyone can write an article about anyone or anything regardless of whether there is any real significance or not. This is clearly an example of someone fishing for a subject just for the sake of writing an article. This guy played college football. Big deal. Thousands of young men play college football each year and this guy was not extraordinary in any way. Note that neither his predecessor nor successor (listed at the bottom of the article) have a Wikipedia article. This is just some random guy who happened to be drafted 174th in the NFL draft. The importance of his so-called college career is subjective and he's never played a minute in the NFL let alone succeeded at it. The possibility that he will ride the bench as the third string quarterback for an NFL team next year does not increase his stock. Until he does something notable in his career, this article is really jumping the gun. If not, how about an article about the bagger at your local grocery store or your local UPS delivery driver? Is that where we are headed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindacober (talk • contribs) — Lindacober (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Have you read Wp:ATHLETE? The first part of the first criterion is, "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". He hasn't done that, therefore he fails it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have you read WP:Athlete? It's not necessary to condescend to someone simply because you disagree with them. The second clause of WP:ATHLETE arguably contradicts your point, insofar as Division I FBS college football is the "highest amateur level" of American football. Strikehold (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I've read WP:ATHLETE, which is why I said I feel he makes it. Our opinions differ. Live with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "highest amateur level" clause is for sports that do not have professional levels such as swimming, diving, and gymnastics. Football obviously has higher levels. This guy does not qualify. He has not competed at the "highest" level. We might have an NFL fan bias happening here.
  • Keep- Even if he fails WP:ATHLETE, looks like there's enough sources to show that he meets the general guidelines just fine. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The nominator's main thrust is that the article's editors were acting in bad faith and had no purpose other than to pad their "edit counts". Additionally, saying this is "just some random guy who happened to be drafted 174th in the NFL" is both contradictory and shows that the nominator does not have a real understanding of American football or the noteworthiness of its individual players. Being drafted by an NFL team – in the middle of the draft, I should add – certainly implies some notability. Being a starting quarterback at a major college football program – for three seasons, I should add – certainly implies some notability. Having several feature articles and significant coverage in reliable sources solidifies notability beyond doubt: ESPN, The Fresno Bee, [1], [2], [3], Scout.com, The Modesto Bee, [4], [5], The Idaho Statesman, etc. About 1,300 more hits here if you want to look through the rest. Strikehold (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Let's just end this, the nom is accusing the creators and writers of bad faith.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 22:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep because we like running up out edit/authoring totals because this player will clearly be playing in the NFL, and per the sources provided above. MuZemike 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete He's a nobody in terms of national recognition. There is no guarantee that he'll be "playing" in the NFL. He didn't play on a national contending college team and didn't set any significant records. He didn't appear in any serious bowl games, in fact his team failed to even rank in the BCS. It's not like this was a Heisman candidate we are talking about. It's more likely than not that he'll be out of the sport entirely in a few years never accomplishing anything. (The average NFL career lasts only 3.5 years - source: http://www.nflplayers.com/user/template.aspx?fmid=181&lmid=349&pid=0&type=l#a3). He is listed as the third string backup for the Broncos. He's never played a single down in the NFL. He may never play a single down. The articles cited above are local fluff and repeats of local fluff. He's not known nationally and nobody cares. Some of you NFL fans may be giving undue credit and/or bias to the importance of the NFL. Just because he has some association with the league does not make him special in any way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindacober (talk • contribs)
    • Number 1, who said this? Number 2, you're stomping on WP:CRYSTAL by saying, "It's more likely than not that he'll be out of the sport entirely in a few years never accomplishing anything", why is that relevant? He's notable and you don't have to have "national recognition", you think I have any clue who some athletes are, no yet they're notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually it is you that is stomping all over WP:CRYSTAL by assuming that this guy will even play in the NFL. This article could have waited until the subject had become notable in anyway which by WP:ATHLETE standards he has not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.24.12 (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No by your saying he going to be out of the league in a few years as your rationale is breaking WP:CRYSTAL plus all the sources provided give Brandstater notability along with being named the 2007 Humanitarian Bowl MVP.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 14:04, 7 June 2009 (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/Tom_Brandstater&oldid=1140395805"