Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Brown (American football)


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Brown (American football)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

completely non-notable high school kid. emerson7 | Talk 03:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Only weak claim to notability is supposedly being a college football prospect, and it's not even remotely enough in this case. This isn't LeBron James. --Bongwarrior 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep! He is ranked #1 by Scout.com -- not too shabby. The guy is widely considered one of the greatest prospects football has seen. Just needs some better sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. ESPN aired a high school football game specifically to show this kid. Smashville 06:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as there seems to be coverage from reliable sources. It's not a lot, and whether he's "#1" depends on who's doing the rankings, but there is some attention. It isn't exactly burning up the sports pages, though. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just like XDanielx said, this kid is widely considered one of the greatest prospects in recent years. ––Bender235 10:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sure, he's a prospect. But he's still in high school. What happens if he goes out in his next game and breaks his leg? What if he makes it to college and isn't that good? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm not saying he won't merit an article in a few years, but right now it's just too premature. --Bongwarrior 10:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even high school football phenoms deserve their article, see T. A. McLendon, Ronald Curry, Ken Hall, Ron Powlus … ––Bender235 11:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * T. A. McLendon's high school career was over for five years before his article was written. The rest had already reached the NFL. Like I said, it's just too soon to assign notability to this kid. --Bongwarrior 11:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * However, Brown has national attention by USA Today and New York Times just to mention a few, which makes him more notable then most college football players. ––Bender235 11:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having received non-trivial coverage in the national press, he now meets WP:BIO's criteria for notability. End of story. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I read this kid as being in a similar position to Rhain Davis, whose notability was likewise asserted based on the fact that he was a young player who was tipped as being the next big thing in his chosen sport (Davis plays soccer). The article on Davis was deleted due to the fact that there's still a long way to go before he actually achieves anything much in his chosen sport, and I'd argue that Brown is likewise a hot prospect who may not go anywhere. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about how much a player has achieved in a sport, it's about how much the media is paying him attention. Someone like Maurice Clarett has achieved only a bit more than nothing in football, but he got media attention (because he sued the NFL). Brown hasn't achieved much yet, but Pete Carroll and Bob Stoops praise him like he's the 2nd coming. ––Bender235 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but the thing is that currently Brown is only beeing talked about in terms of potential, rather than actual, success. In Clarett's case, he never really went beyond the potential-success stage, but he became notable because of his notoriety. If he'd had an article written at the time that he was being talked up as a College prospect (let alone a pro one), then I'd still be advocating its deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: distinctly non-trivial coverage in New York Times along with the other decent sources means he meets the overarching notability guideline. --Pak21 11:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment On the one hand, he fails the relevant notability guidelines. However, he has received coverage in the NY Times and USA Today, among others. My personal feelings is that he deserves an article, but it looks like Wikipedia guidelines are against him (though not policy). This is probably an ideal instance where the rules should be ignored. Since I'm conflicted, I'm not arguing Keep or Delete. faithless   (speak)  05:36, 12 September 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.