Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Richards (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Brandon Richards
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

High school record-setting athlete, well-referenced as such, but we hitherto have not usually been willing to accept success at that level as notability. A previously-deleted article about a person of the same name is about someone else entirely  DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep As the creator of the article, two years ago, I first must ask WHEN the first deletion of this article was made?  But beyond that, as the National High School Record holder for 14 Years, under WP:NSPORT or any other guideline, how can you possibly say this individual is not notable?  We have an entire article, yes also of my creation, that has the complete list of High School National Record holders.  Certainly all the individuals who achieved said records also are notable, getting coverage well beyond local papers and basic statistics.  But speaking of statistics, most frequently, the national record holder's name and mark sits above most meet results duplicated across the country.  Brandon Richards was there for 14 years.  To cast the doubt of notability against this lone article casts the entire subject into the same doubt.  These record holders and their achievements have been tracked for the better part of a century, published in numerous articles. Trackinfo (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article that you have linked for the previous AfD, it is not about the same individual. Read Martial Arts and State of Washington in the discussion.  You have completely misdirected this AfD.  I urge a speedy conclusion to this folly. Trackinfo (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the mistake was when I put this up for CSD after seeing that an article by the same name was deleted shortly before this article was created and because I thought this individual also failed all notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete He doesn't come close to meeting the notability criteria at WP:NSPORTS and his only other claim to notability is being the son of an Olympic gold medalist (WP:NOTINHERITED).  Being the 10th best pole vaulter in UCLA history or a high school state champion does not meet any notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You entirely missed the point. He was the National Record holder, both indoors (for about a year) and outdoors (for 14 years).  Out of the millions of high school kids who have participated in the sport, he was the best.  That is an extremely notable achievement.  For some junior level athletes, they may not make it to the Olympics a junior achievement was their peak, but it was a peak that made them exceptional.  As a high school athlete, WP:NSPORTS points out, he is notable if he receives coverage "as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage."  The article already contains coverage from the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Track and Field News and Dyestat.  The last two are the major national media within the sport.  On the general principle of WP:GNG that should have already sufficed.  I will now have to lard up the article with further wide coverage.  This AfD goes to the point of the statement I make on my own user page.  If you do not understand the subject you are talking about, you have no business suggesting articles about that subject be deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Add a full article in People Magazine, mentions in the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, ESPN Rise, Getty Images, the Lubbock paper when the record was broken 14 years later, the Santa Barbara local paper recalling the mark this year, 27 years later. We are now at 20 sources, national publications, coast to coast, north and south.  Need I go on further? Trackinfo (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly passes the general notability guideline by having achieved "significant coverage", i.e. "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --OhioStandard (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to meet notability guidelines to me. LATimes, Chicago Tribune etc...Capitalismojo (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  05:04, 2 June 2012 (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.