Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Hatch


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Hatch

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested Prod. A backup (actually 3rd string) quarterback for LSU who has only played in three drives of a football game (see here and here). The only shred of notability asserted about him in the article is that he transferred from Harvard (many players transfer colleges this doesn't make them notable), he took a missionary trip to Chile for his Church (according to the article Missionary (LDS Church) there are over 50,000 missionaries in the Church, it doesn't make one notable), and that he was a National Merit Finalist (I only assume it is the National Merit Award scholarship, which, that article states, 15,000 high school seniors each year are finalists, and doesn't make one notable). He fails WP:N for now (if he becomes the starter before he leaves college he might deserve an article), but right now the article should be Deleted. Phydend (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Incredibly Strong Keep Should never have been nominated. Nominator says himself that this athlete has played in a game; therefore, he has competed at the highest level in amateur sports, and quite easily passes WP:BIO. Full disclosure: I did not create the article, though I did do just about all of the work on it. However I am not an LSU fan, nor had I ever heard of this kid before I rewrote the page. Still, he certainly passes our notability guidelines for athletes. Being a missionary and all the rest isn't a claim to notability, and isn't presented as such. He is notable for playing at the highest level of amateur sports. faithless   (speak)  20:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Does college level count as highest level of amateur sports? WP:SPORTS says: "Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not considered notable unless they meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days." so I'm guessing no. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on the sport. If we're talking gymnastics, then the Olympics are probably the highest level. If we're talking American football, yes, college is the highest level of amateur football. faithless   (speak)  21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "amateur sports" clause is meant for sports that are not professional at all, like rowing and a lot of other Olympic sports. Sports that are first and foremost professional, such as football, soccer, basketball etc are covered by the professionalism clause and not the amateur clause. Punkmorten (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete...I've thought more about these. WP:BIO says that athletes are generally notable if they have played in the highest level of amateur sports. However, it also says meeting the guideline doesn't merit inclusion. Common sense would say a person who played 3 drives is not notable...and - there is a higher non-amateur level than college football. I believe the intention of the policy is to cover olympic athletes, not third string college football players. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I sort of agree with you that the guidelines are a little lenient for athletes. However, until they're changed, I can't see how anyone could argue that Hatch doesn't meet the requirements. Perhaps you're right about the intent behind the guideline, but it doesn't even come close to suggesting that it is meant for Olympic athletes rather than college athletes. faithless   (speak)  21:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But the guideline specifically says that meeting it doesn't merit inclusion. We're talking about a quarterback who has completed one pass in the NCAA. Per this link in 2004-2005 alone, there were 384,742 NCAA athletes. In 1999-2000, there were 355,098. In 1994-5 there were 289,933. In 1985-1986, there were 288,629. In 1981-1982 there were 231,445. We're talking about a minimum (very minimum - I went in 5 year increments to factor in replacement...in fact, since the NCAA has been around for 101 years and I factored in none of the years in between, the number will be exponentially larger) of 1.5 million people who are notable enough for Wikipedia if competing int the NCAA is considered sufficient notability for inclusion. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline is (I believe intentionally) vague. In my opinion, it could definitely stand a revision. But until that happens, I don't see a good reason to delete this. The fact that a lot of people have played college sports is hardly a legitimate argument for deletion (no offense). Rather, that's a good argument for changing the guideline (perhaps change it to those who have started in an NCAA game?). I do believe the guideline needs to be changed so that it is more clear and restrictive, but we have to work with what we have. If it is changed, then perhaps my argument would change. But as it stands right now, he passes notability. faithless   (speak)  22:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline specifically says that meeting it does not mean it should be included. If at least 1.5 million people (an extremely generously low estimate) meet the criteria, then, obviously this is one of those cases. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Just because there is a loophole in a policy that allows potentially millions upon millions of people to be notable. We shouldn't keep an article because of a loophole. That's why WP:IAR exists. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reiterate that I think the guideline ought to be amended to prevent these types of articles being created in the first place. I certainly don't think I deserve an article for playing soccer in college. That being said, no particularly compelling reason has been given for its deletion. Your main argument appears to be that not all NCAA athletes deserve articles; I agree with you there. However, the guideline currently allows just that, and since Wikipedia isn't paper, the sheer number of potential articles shouldn't affect our decision here. I'm all for a more stringent notability guideline for athletes (in fact this has me considering seeking a change), but until then... faithless   (speak)  00:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're correct. The number of potential articles isn't a delete reason. But the fact that at least 1.5 million exist means that it's not a valid claim to notability. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't this a case of someone who fails the basic criteria for notability under WP:BIO who passes the additional criteria - in this case, competeing at the highest amateur level? Or worst comes to worst, do we ignore all rules? I mean, I certainly respect the skills of a major college quarterback, and I'm open to being persuaded, which is why I didn't record a vote, but is there an argument that, but for the overly-generous guidelines, he's notable? Xymmax (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless stronger evidence of notability emerges. faithless is quite incorrect that college football meets the "highest amateur level" test, and there is ample precedent to show otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 00:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I? Please share with us, what is the highest amateur level for an American football player if not college? faithless   (speak)  01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested to see evidence of the precedent. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate this provision of WP:BIO. I do think there is a strong argument for college being the highest level of amateur football, but thats neither here nor there.  The guideline is in effect, and Wikipedia is awash with precedent that one only needs to step on to the field to qualify and what the player did while on the field is rarely brought into question.  Which, when you think about it, is probably correct - "was he on the field" is an easy question to verify, "Did he do something useful" is somewhat less clear.  That soccer player with the one international cap is welcome, regardless if he came in the 80th minute as an injury substitution and didn't even touch the ball.  That football player is welcome even if he only played in garbage time.  Do I think that either of these players are really notable?  Absolutely, positively not.  But luckily for all of us, I don't get to make any decisions around here.  Keep for strongly meeting the WP:BIO provision and hopefully some day the community pendulum will shift enough so that we can revisit this. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to LSU Tigers Football or delete. After thinking about it for a day, I still don't see that this person is notable. It appears to me that the consensus of those commenting or voting is that he is notable only because he meets, in the most technical sense, the additional criteria for athletes. The essence of WP:IAR is that you do not slavishly follow the rules to reach a result that you know is absurd, and we shouldn't do it here. I understand that there is precedent to the contrary, but in this case that amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The most notable thing that can be said about Mr. Hatch is that he was a member of a highly ranked football team, played in part of one game and threw 2 passes. That shouldn't put you into Wikipedia. Xymmax (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A couple of editors have invoked WP:IAR here, so I'd just like to toss in my two cents, as I disagree with the implementation of that policy in this instance. In my opinion, IAR is not something which should be bandied about (just to clarify, I'm not accusing anyone of doing this), but rather should be reserved for exceptional cases. IAR is there so that if something prevents us from improving the encyclopedia, we have a way around it; it's not a loophole to employ when we don't agree with established policies and guidelines. It seems that all of us find the current guideline for athletes unacceptable and should probably be changed. I have already said that I am for a more stringent guideline, one which would result in the uncontested deletion of this article. But we ought not ignore a guideline simply because we disagree with it. faithless   (speak)  17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is necessarily arguing WP:IAR. The fact is that WP:BIO states that meeting the criteria does not guarantee inclusion. In this case, I believe we should invoke WP:COMMON. There are currently over 300,000 NCAA athletes. All-time there is closer to 15-20 million college athletes. It's not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. My argument is that if there are 15-20 million of something, then the criteria isn't notable. Based on the census of 2000, there were approximately 27 million people between 18-24. That same year there were 355,098 college athletes. That's over one percent of the population - for one year. And that's just for one year. Using replacement, virtually all of the 375,851 athletes from 2003-2004 and all of the 331,635 from 1995-1996 are unique from those. That's almost 1.1 million former college athletes from the last 10 years alone. That's more than the population of 8 states. The sheer numbers alone show you that being one is not notable. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Enough with the numbers! :-) I've said it repeatedly, I agree with you that he ought not to be notable. But going by Wikipedia's guidelines, he is. This needs to be changed. Until it is, the article shouldn't be deleted. faithless   (speak)  22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Going by the guidelines, he is not. He has not been the subject of any secondary publications. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per the NCAA, more than 3.5 million people have participated in the NCAA. You cannot logically argue that all 3.5 million of those people are notable for Wikipedia inclusion. Once again, it's not an ignore all rules argument. It's a "read the entire policy and use common sense" argument. Nothing in WP:BIO says that meeting this criteria guarantees inclusion. And - as I have pointed out numerous times - the policy states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In addition, the policy also says, "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". I don't see anywhere that he meets the secondary source criteria. Everything is either trivial mentions or in the context of something else. All of the keep arguments seem to be ignoring the last part of the policy. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. He plays NCAA Division 1 FBS football, the most notable sport it sanctions and the highest amateur level for his sport, on a highly notable team, in the most notable position.  It is the sum of those which make him notable, not the mere fact that he is a college athlete.  Consuelo D&#39;Guiche (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any secondary sources? I can't find any. And notability is not inherited. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Going after sources is a better argument, I think. I have one article about Hatch himself, and a number of articles about Hatch moving up to backup for the last game, and then of course, the box scores for the game, which validate that he played.  Meager pickings indeed.  The problem is, that all this really does is validate that he is a football player for a Division 1 team which re-enforces the original point that he is notable under WP:BIO.  The reason I stick with keep is mainly because I can't muster a good enough argument to delete it, given the guidelines, available information and the body of articles that came before it.  And if I was an admin, I probably couldn't delete it, and if somebody else deleted it, I would probably vote to re-instate it at deletion review.  I just can't get past the WP:BIO guideline.  He stepped on the field, we have the sources to prove it, and Wikipedia has proven time and time again that "stepped on the field" is all we need.  I'm sorry.  I wish you luck in any efforts to fix WP:BIO, but you are headed for a steel wall of college football fans who will fight tooth and nail for the right to keep the entire roster of any player that has ever played for their school, and no matter what arbitrary notability standards you try to apply, I'm afraid that you'll end up just sliding right back to where we are now. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason to delete would be he doesn't meet secondary source specifications. He hasn't been the subject of any secondary sources. As a former Harvard student, you would expect Harvard's school paper to report on him. There has been no good reason to keep him. He doesn't meet WP:BIO. Again, WP:BIO says that meeting those standards are not a reason to delete. But - he doesn't meet those standards. He has not been the subject of any nontrivial secondary sources that are not pertaining to an event in which he was a participant. The Harvard article is a primary source. --SmashvilleBONK! 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per faithless. Notincredible strong", but keep.  Andrew Hatch is not Tom Brady, but he is certainly notable.  Tiptopper 14:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Again, where are the secondary sources? Why is everyone only reading part of WP:BIO and ignoring the other parts? --SmashvilleBONK! 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete common sense. The rules are intended to be flexible, and this much participation in what is technically an amateur game is not notable.DGG (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect. Including this is just begging to have every D-I athlete in America use the Other Stuff Exists argument. Pandora's Box, anyone?--CastAStone//(talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of College Football articles in need of attention. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.