Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Hawkins (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Brad Hawkins (American football)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football,  and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily passes GNG, see this, this, this, this, this, this, etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per significant coverage posted by BeanieFan11. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with and .  SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 18:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage provided by BeanieFan11. Alvaldi (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - while some of BeanieFan's sources are blogs or non-independent (I think one was published by his college) there is still enough coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Which one was published by his college? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they're referring to this one which was written by @UMAndrewB on "a Michigan Wolverines community" blog page hosted by SBNation. If that were the only source it might be argued that it's not independent, but it's clearly the outlier amongst the otherwise independent sources. - Aoidh (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep enough to pass WP:GNG. 142.126.241.149 (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm copying my rationale from Articles for deletion/Tay Martin because it's an identical situation even down to the editor who provided the sources: This is an easy keep. BeanieFan11's sources more than show notability per WP:GNG and the nom's rationale is no longer applicable due to these sources, so at this point there's no valid argument that I can see for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have looked at Hawkins in the past and concluded he wasn't sufficiently notable to create a stand-alone article. He was a three-star recruit who won a regular spot in the lineup and was praised for his hard work, diligence, etc. That said, not every regular starter warrants a stand-alone article. In this case, Hawkins played parts of five years at Michigan, never won a national, conference, or team award of note. He did win a couple conference weekly honors and third-team All-Big Ten honors in one year. After college, he was undrafted by the NFL, tried out for a couple teams and did not make the cut. I'll concede that the Detroit Free Press articles are SIGCOV, but I'm less persuaded by the rest, including the piece from the Maize N Brew blog and the NJ coverage of his high school exploits. Given the coverage, I can't vote "delete", but I really don't think a microstub on a marginal player makes Wikipedia better. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks are due to User:Alvaldi for expanding the article a bit, so at least it's no longer a microstub. Cbl62 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: He was cut by the Patiots yesterday but I agree with the keeps above that he meets WP:GNG.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As expanded, the in-depth details of his collegiate accomplishments passes the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2022 (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.