Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brady–Belichick era


 * 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. There seem to be some dispute about the title, but the general consensus is to keep. Other issues can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 19:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Brady–Belichick era
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. All the sources provided use the term "Brady-Belichick era" in passing, but don't give it direct and detailed coverage as an independent subject. This page seems to be someone's personal essay. NickCT (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I dunno about this. We have plenty of articles that cover a particular franchise/program over a certain time period and it's hard to imagine many such periods that would be more noteworthy than the Brady-Belichick era. Maybe it's just a personal gut feeling, but I have to imagine that this is a notable concept. Lepricavark (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - "cover a particular franchise of a certain time " - Such as? NickCT (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I should have been more precise in my initial comment. Admittedly, I am mostly thinking of articles that cover college football, such as Alabama Crimson Tide football under Nick Saban. I would say that the Alabama and New England dynasties are fairly comparable and are both noteworthy enough to be article subjects. Lepricavark (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Ooooff... Honestly, Alabama Crimson Tide football under Nick Saban looks like a "delete" to me too. It's OK to have "History of...." articles, but these things shouldn't be named after specific coaches/players. It should be more like History of the New England Patriots. I don't think there's anywhere else that history articles get titled with names. There are no "Apple under Tim Cook" articles. Or "United States under Harry Truman". NickCT (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's an entire article about the Presidency of Harry S. Truman. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See also Victorian era and Edwardian era -- periods of British history under the reign of a particular king/queen. Cbl62 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If this were refactored as "History of the New England Patriots under Bill Bellichick" or "New England Patriots under Bill Bellichick", I'd be a clear "keep" voter. The mixing of Brady and Bellichick makes it a little gray for me. Cbl62 (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Right. Which is different than "United States under Harry Truman", right? NickCT (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Here is a book that deals directly with the Victorian era as its primary topic. That's how we establish the "Victorian Era"'s notability. Can you show me something similar for the Brady–Belichick era? NickCT (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The comments above were in response to your "Ooooff" and contention above that "I don't think there's anywhere else that history articles get titled with names." The contention has been shown to be baseless. And, yes, there are absolutely abundant sources covering the "Belichick era" -- a google search turns up 46,300 hits. Cbl62 (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - That's not a good counter point. If we had an article called "History of the United Kingdom under Victoria", that would have been a good counterpoint. The Victorian Era article isn't an article about the history of something else (i.e. like the Alabama Crimson Tide football under Nick Saban is about the history of the Crimson tide). The "Victorian Era" article is about an independently notable thing, called "The Victorian Era". NickCT (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree, sir. And, there's no need to respond to every comment by everyone who disagrees with you. The point here is to build and reflect consensus, not to "win" a battle. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - There's a difference between examining logic and fighting a battle. If you're unfamiliar with the difference between the two, you should get familiar. I take the point that my initial comment re "history article get titled" could have been confusing. I was really only talking about articles titled "History of X", and not any article that dealt with history. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "If you're unfamiliar with the difference between the two, you should get familiar" Still coming across a bit more like combat than a collegial discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Collegial discussions also usually don't involve equivocation. You do understand that the "Victorian Era" has books written about it, in a way that the "Brady-Belichik Era" does not, right? NickCT (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are books that have been written about this remarkable period in Patriots history. See here, here, and here. This plus other abundant sources satisfy GNG. That's all that's required. The fact that the Victorian era may be more notable is a red herring. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - I'm having trouble understanding how most of the sources you're providing are about "the Brady-Belicick-Era". The primary topic of Patriot Reign for example seems to be Belichick's management of the Patriots. Belichick's management of the Patriots may well have been notable. That doesn't mean "the Brady-Belicick-Era" is a thing. You'd agree Steve Jobs' management of Apple was notable? Does that mean "the Jobs era" is a thing? NickCT (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * re "the Victorian era may be more notable" - Ok. Fine. So some thing are more notable and somethings are less notable. I agree w/ you that there is some notability for the topic "the Brady-Belicick-Era" (by virtue of all the passing mention you've pointed to). You still haven't pointed to significant coverage in the way I did for the "Victorian era". NickCT (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Patriot Reign" book (here) is a best-selling comprehensive history of the Patriots dynasty under Belichick and Brady. Not sure how the coverage could be more direct or significant. It includes a full chapter on "Tom Brady and the Reconstruction", and additional chapters addressing each of the major developments in the dynasty. This is unquestionably "significant coverage" (indeed, of the highest order) on the subject at issue here. (The same is also true of the second book, "Belichick and Brady: Two Men, the Patriots, and How They Revolutionized Football" here.) Cbl62 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * re "of the Patriots dynasty under Belichick and Brady" - Citation needed. That is your synopsis. I agree that this is "good coverage" of something. Just not of the "Brady-Belichick era". I think the conclusion that this book is about the "Brady Belichick era" is just something you're infering.
 * re "Belichick and Brady: Two Men, the Patriots" - The primary topic there is clearly the friendship between Brady and Belichick. A friendship does not an "era" make. Want to write a "Frienship of Belichick and Brady" article? Go ahead.... NickCT (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with the main Patriots article per NickCT's assessment. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  18:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect and or merge what we can to New England Patriots I do not see a need for a separate article on this. It also borders on WP:SYNTH Wm335td (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  22:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as the worst kind of fanwank. Most of the article is uncited POV prose. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Fanwank! lol. NickCT (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with the Patriots page per NickCT and Beemer69. Dwscomet (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the article and content clearly pass the general notability guideline and there is an excessive volume of credible third party articles on the subject. Clearly the world believes this topic is notable.  Arguments for deletion seem to be variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not a reason to delete, or the argument about WP:NEED which also is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - I love when folks read over a bunch of rationales for deletion, then just assume they all equate to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Good example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You've asserted that "there is an excessive volume (italics added for emphasis) of credible third party articles". Ok. Can you point to a single article which deals with the Brady-Belichick era as it's primary topic? NickCT (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's examples of the variations of "I don't like it": (1) "This page seems to be someone's personal essay" (2) "Delete as the worst kind of fanwank." and an example of "need": "I do not see a need for a separate article on this." -- these are all personal point of view statements.  There is no "assumption" on my part.  There are only two actual policies or guidelines directly referenced (WP:SIGCOV and WP:SYNTH) -- and they do not apply because their standards have been met.  There is the WP:POV issue indirectly brought up, but that's really an editing issue and not a deletion issue.  The references already provided by Cbl62 should suffice for your other request.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, largely due to the "Patriot Way" section which I suppose is its own topic and not a duplicate. Note, I don't think it's fair or accurate to just exclude Matt Cassel from this article - it's not like he was a second-stringer, he was the primary quarterback for a year.  SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted above, I'm not sure about how the article should be named, but there is abundant significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources about this remarkably successful and unprecedented 20-year football dynasty, such that WP:GNG is satisfied. Examples of such coverage include: (1) this feature story explicitly referring to the "Brady-Belichick era"; (2) this New York Times best-selling book about the Patriots dynasty under Belichick and Brady; (3) this; (4) this; (5) this; (6) this;  (7) this; and (8) this. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an assembly of random articles that include the names "Brady" and "Belichik" in them. They don't give direct coverage to something called the "Brady-Belichik era".
 * Addressing the references one-by-one;
 * 1) Primary topic is the hate for the Pats, not about Brady-Belichik era. Gives passing mention to the term "Brady-Belichick era", not significant coverage.
 * 2) Not a book. Seems like an excerpt from a Boston Globe piece? Regardless, it sorta gives direct coverage to something you might call the Brady Era, but never actually explicitly uses the term.
 * 3) Duplicate of 2?
 * 4) Like 2, also a Boston Globe excerpt?
 * 5) Autobiography by different Pat's player. Unclear how this provides coverage to anything called the "Brady-Belichik era".
 * 6) Primary topics is Pat's 6th championship. Unclear how this provides coverage to anything called the "Brady-Belichik era".
 * 7) Primary topic seems to be anecdotes about the Pats. Unclear how this provides coverage to anything called the "Brady-Belichik era".
 * 8) Primary topic seems to be the Pats and their "Dynasty". Unclear how this provides coverage to anything called the "Brady-Belichik era".
 * If you wanted to create an article called "The Patriots Dynasty", or something like that, it might cut mustard. But that's different from this article. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Patriots dynasty under Brady/Belichick is notable, as you now seem to be halfway acknowledging. At AfD, our goal is to determine whether the subject of the article is notable, not whether a different title would be preferable. The naming of the article is not a reason for deletion; rather, it may be a basis for a subsequent renaming discussion. (And, BTW, source 2 is actually book, and sources don't have to be "books" to count toward GNG. Significant secondary coverage in major metropolitan dailies such as The Boston Globe and New York Daily News is perfectly acceptable.) Cbl62 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - So let's clarify; I said the "Patriots dynasty" might be notable, b/c you pointed to a single source that granted the subject significant coverage. You seem to be infering that the "Patriots Dynasty" and the "Brady-Belichick Era" are the same thing. Not clear to me that that's the case.
 * Of course things don't have to be books. But it's weird you link to Google Books for something that isn't a book. It's not even clear to me what kind of publication this is....... Is it a blog? Is it a legitimate publication from the Boston Globe? NickCT (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "Patriots dynasty" and the "Brady-Belichick era" refer to the same thing -- i.e., the remarkable era of success, including 6 Super Bowl championships, experienced by the New England Patriots since 2000 when the greatest quarterback of all time was paired with arguably the greatest coach in NFL history. Any issue of renaming can be addressed via a talk page discussion, but affords no basis for deletion. As for the items found in Google books, the decision to include there is an editorial decision by Google, not by me. Cbl62 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * re "Patriots dynasty" and the "Brady-Belichick era" refer to the same thing - Citation needed! Even if the Patriots Dynasty were notable, it's not clear to me that this article is about the Patriots Dynasty, as much as it's about some synthetic topic called "the Brady-Belichick era", which isn't a thing (or not a notable thing at least). This wouldn't just require renaming. It would require renaming, and rewriting to change the subject. Might as well just delete. You could always preserve the part of the article you like, then try to come back and get a Patriots dynasty article going. NickCT (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Will CBS Sports do for that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Look.... The "Patriots Dynasty" might be a notable thing. You have a single article from CBS saying a non-notable thing (i.e. the so-called "Brady/Belichick era") overlaps with a possibly notable thing (i.e. the "Patriots Dynasty"). That doesn't mean those two things are the same. It also doesn't mean an abstract concept like "the Brady/Belichick era" can co-opt notability from "the Patriots Dynasty".
 * The article, as currently written, is clearly more focused on Brady/Belichick, than it is focused on a sports dynasty. I think you guys are conflating primary topics here. Really, I think what you want to do is have an article called "Patriots Dynasty", then have a subsection called "Brady/Belichick era". NickCT (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see... the article starts with "Where do the Belichick-Brady Patriots rank among the NFL's dominant teams? You may be surprised." and it continues "The Patriots are also easily outlined by the Brady/Belichick era," followed by "Patriots: Brady and Belichick era (2001-2014)" -- as for its significance, the source states "That's what makes the New England Patriots' current run so special. New England has now won four Super Bowls and participated in six since the turn of the century, while no other NFL franchise has won more than two or appeared in more than three." As for what the article is called and the layout of its content, that is once again an editing topic and not a deletion topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Renaming. In order to (hopefully) resolve NickCT's concern over the naming of the article, I moved the article to "New England Patriots dynasty in the Brady-Belichick era". There is no question that the dynasty is notable, and the squabbling here has largely turned on the naming of the article. I hope that puts to rest any lingering concerns about notability. If others think a slightly different name is preferable, that can be discussed further on the article talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Well kudos on a small step in a direction which is possibly right. "New England Patriots dynasty" would of course be a little less unwieldy. Anyways, what I think is happening here is that a bunch of Brady/Belichik fan boys are trying to promote them as the heroes of the Patriot's recent successes. I don't really know whether that true or false, and honestly I don't really care. I do know using Wikipedia for that kind of fan worship and soapboxing is sorta WP:LAME. Continuing this debate would also be a little lame. Perhaps, like Tom Brady from football, it's come time for me to consider retiring from this conversation. NickCT (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep If this isn’t a notable sports topic of the past almost two decades then... what is? I hear about this duo almost everyday and not just because I’m a (casual at best) Patriots fan. Just because the sourcing may be considered sub-par doesn’t mean articles that go in depth on the concept don’t exist. ⌚️ (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge This is difficult because notability isn't the issue here - it's the fact this is a terrible content fork of the main History of the New England Patriots article, which discusses the era much more comprehensively. This desperately needs to be cleaned up, and I think a merge is the best option here. I don't care if through the cleanup there's a decision made that this part of the team's history has a stand-alone article, but as it stands this is needlessly duplicative - this article should be more detailed than the general history page as opposed to being duplicative, and is not by a long shot. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * History of the New England Patriots is already too big with over 118,000 bytes. See WP:TOOBIG ("> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided"). Accordingly, it's an appropriate and needed fork. The need for cleanup should be resolved by editing, not AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree this shouldn't be at AfD, but there is a very identifiable need for cleanup, and I wanted to make clear this shouldn't just be kept and forgotten about. Would you support something similar to History of Liverpool F.C. or History of Manchester United F.C. by renaming the article History of the New England Patriots (2000–present), upmerging the relevant seasons from History of the New England Patriots, and then leaving a paragraph or so about the timeline on the main History of page? I think that's the best solution, but I also don't know if that goes against American football style guides. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Much as I completely despise both of these jackasses guys, this obviously meets WP:GNG. How this all works out in conjunction with History of the New England Patriots is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Brady-Belichick dynasty is one of the greatest in NFL history and probably deserves its own article due to how much info is in this one article alone. Would be tough merging into New England Patriots. Probably needs a rename though.  CatcherStorm    talk   11:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant era in the history of the team and football in general, merge is impractical due to large content, and clearly passes WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2020 (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.