Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Brandstatter


 * 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 speedy keep (non-admin closure).-- Giants27 T/  C  19:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Brandstatter

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unremarkable local (American) football colour commentator. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * VERY STRONG KEEP. Just like I said at Dan Miller (sportscaster), He can be heard statewide on not one but 2 teams radio networks (Detroit Lions and Michigan Wolverines football). Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean no one else has either. Notability is simply a matter of opinion (so far yours and no one else's opinion), and NOT a matter of fact. He passes Notability_(people) because he has a TV show on not one but two national channels Fox Sports Detroit and Big Ten Network (in that channel's case nationwide in both the U.S. and Canada, 2 of the most populated nations in the world) and can be heard on over 40 radio stations in 2 states and Canada, and nationwide on Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio, as well as overseas on the Armed Forces Radio Network. All games are also broadcast worldwide online. How isn't that notable? TomCat4680 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article subject clearly fails Notability_(people). Which of the two listed criteria do you believe applies here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Read my comments again. He can be heard and seen weekly in millions of homes. He also played on one of the best American college football teams in the late 1960s. Just because you're British (I'm assuming so anyway for how you spelled color) and haven't heard of him, doesn't mean no one else has.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * None of what you have written relates to the specific criteria in the guideline you referenced in your vote. Please read what you linked to. Which of the criteria do you believe applies? I'm not trying to badger you, but I don't think you are basing your voting or editing on WP guidelines and policies, so I'm asking you to look again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree, he has written 2 books and can be found in hundreds of newspaper articles. He is also 2 time president on an organization of his peers (The Detroit Sports Broadcasters Association), all 3 proving both Notability_(people) (person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them) and point 1 of WP:CREATIVE (person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors)
 * You chose to cite Notability_(people) in your keep vote. The two criteria mentioned are "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" and "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". I think we can agree to ignore the latter. The former criteria says nothing about being mentioned in books or articles - it talks about awards, specifically notable awards. Which notable awards has the article subject won or been often nominated for? It's not a trick question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: President of the Detroit Sports Broadcasters Association, a democratic group of his peers. He was voted in. I think that's quite an honor. Give it up, you're not winning this argument. Admin, can I get a close per WP:SNOW? TomCat4680 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's simply not a notable award or honor. "Notable" here means notable in the WP:NOTABILITY sense. I know you think this is an argument, but I'm just trying to show you that your vote is not based on the guideline that you yourself offered. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to be a notable broadcaster. The creator is encouraged to avoid casting aspersions on other editors, however. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'll behave. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep 238 google news articles in which many some of these articles have Jim as the central topic of the article, also mentioned in 20 google books. Ikip (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just as soon leave this alone, but since there seems to be some canvassing going on, I'd like to point out that the assertion that many of the articles have "Jim" as their subject appears to be a gross inflation, based on my viewing of the search results. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "some", on further searching these articles, I realized that only the first 15 have Jim in the subject. Is this agreeable? Ikip (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: this discussion mentioned on: Talk:Rich Rodriguez, Talk:Bo Schembechler, Talk:University of Michigan, Talk:Michigan Wolverines football, Talk:Detroit Lions Radio Network Ikip (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing administratior please note this article has gone through extensive improvements since the original AfD nomination. Including several more sources, etc. Ikip (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep He has enough news coverage to meet all requirements for an article.  D r e a m Focus  20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Though not FA quality, subject is notable and the article has improved. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Brandstatter has been a major figure in Michigan football over the past 30 years.  Cbl62 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep of the markedly improved artcle.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Exactly, why is this discussion still open? It was prematurely afded (and before that speedy afded). I never said i was done with it before this nominations. There's an ongoing discussion about this kind of thing at WT:BLP. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Close request: Admin please close per WP:SNOW. 7 keeps to zero votes for delete besides nominator's. TomCat4680 (talk)
 * Make that 8-0. Any body else? The snowball is melting fast...TomCat4680 (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BIO, sources noted by Ikip. Strikehold (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, WP:SNOW. Discussion unlikely to change, but may continue for another 12 hours before WP:STICK applies. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with concern I can fully see why nominator originally nominated this article. Subsequent improvements have helped. I am extremely concerned with WP:OWN and overall attitude of the the original editor (I hate to say "creator") - please WP:AGF that nominating editor believed they were doing what was best in their opinion for Wikipedia. Please, also respect process - "rushing it" does little to help. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with bwilkins. I have advised Tom that his comments hurt him the most. In a positive turn of events, he struck out one comment, and I hope he refactors out (deletes) the rest. Ikip (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2009 (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.