Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Brantly


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin Brantly

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. He has not yet competed in a professional game. PackerMania (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, after bringing the chains in for a measurement. The minute he kicks a ball in the NFL, CFL, or even UFL, he meets point 1 of WP:ATH—and then notability is clear-cut. Even now, it's arguable that he meets point 2: what higher level of amateur football is there than the Football Bowl Subdivision? The stronger case for keeping the article, though, is that the references section shows that he meets WP:GNG. Even though a lot of the links are to aggiesports.com, there is at least one full-fledged story about him from the Houston Chronicle. Accordingly, I'm willing to say he's "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, I would agree that playing pro (barely) makes one notable per WP:ATHLETE. According to the article, though, he has not ever kicked a ball in the the NFL, CFL, or even UFL. He might be notable someday, but he might not; he is not now. And as for WP:GNG, if somebody only possibly notable because they are an athlete can get in with local news coverage of their athletic pursuits, then many, many high school atheletes and almost every college athelete would get in Wikipedia, rendering WP:ATHLETE meaningless. You cannot compare Div I college football to the Olympics, can you? Do you really think that any college player in an FBS program is automatically notable? I think you are confusing WP:V with WP:N. PackerMania (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My "after bringing the chains in for a measurement" is meant to say that, while my opinion is stronger than a "weak keep," it was only after a lot of consideration. WP:ATHLETE is a specific-case notability measure; arguably, it's secondary to WP:GNG, which is a subsection of WP:Notability. Had the Chronicle story not been there, I would not have felt as strongly about keeping the article. Even though Houston is only about 100 miles from College Station, it's a major newspaper in a major metropolitan area. I agree that not every FBS player is notable; however, not every FBS player gets as many column-inches about him as Brantly did. Accordingly, it comes down to evaluating this specific case against the notability guidelines and deciding whether the article fulfills them. I agree that this case is borderline—I've admitted that I wrestled with the decision a while. I don't fault you for nominating it for deletion, but I don't agree with the deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You make fair points, but I still think logic dictates that the article should be deleted. I have trouble accepting that a local news story about an in-state, undrafted free agent (from a nearby town who played for a nearby college) trying out for the local NFL team should be enough to indicate notability (remember, notability is permanent). I wonder how many players have been drafted late and cut/waived at a later point in the pre-season than this guy, but would fail your analysis because they never got a solo article written up in the pre-season press. Had he been picked-up by Green Bay, the article never would have been written; had he gone to Wisconsin or been from Madison, the article never would have been written, either. If he were really so notable, he would have at least played a down. I wonder what other editors' takes will be. . . PackerMania (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep All the major college awards he won make him notable. You're theory that they are not notable if they never played professionally does not work. are you saying Jason White is not notable then, because he has never played a game of professional football. Or how about Graham Harrell. I think the either a.) is an avid deletionist or b.) does not have a grasp on notability requirements for athletes. If they fail WP: athlete, WP: GNG still apply. RF23 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment My theory is not that one MUST play in the pros to be notable. But as a guideline, WP:ATHLETE makes sense. I could envision a pop warner player who get non-trivial news coverage for some unique characteristic meeting WP:GNG and certainly a significant college record holder, even if he doesn't ever play pro. I could even justify all FIRST team consensus All-Americans meeting WP:GNG for pretty much that reason alone. But not run-of-the-mill, or even really good, college players. As for your analogies, they are straw men. Having started in the BCS Championship game and being a consensus All-American in my mnd qualify as close enough to critria 2 of WP:Athlete. Are you really comparing Justin Brantly to Jason White? And Graham Harrell played in the pros (though in Canada, which still meets the first requirement of WP:Athlete. The both pass the general WP:GNG for the same reasons. They are both night and day from Justin Brantly. PackerMania (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted in prior college football discussions, the sole purpose of WP:ATHLETE is to establish an automatic inclusionary rule for players who have reached the highest level of a sport.  Brantly's status as a consensus All-Big 12 award winner and a second-team All-American go a long way to showing notability.  More importantly, college football players qualify under the general notability standard if they have been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media.  A search of the Newsbank database shows that Brantly has been the subject of such media coverage focused on him (i.e., not passing references in game coverage).  Examples include: (1) Brantly feeling right at home Ex-A&M punter impressing Texans during workouts, Houston Chronicle, June 5, 2009, (2) Small-town guy making big-time kicks A&M's Brantly fourth nationally in yards per punt, Houston Chronicle, November 26, 2008, (3) Brantly following closely in what Lechler accomplished, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, September 27, 2008, (4) Aggies punter aims to follow in steps of early mentor, San Antonio Express, October 7, 2008, (5) A&M punter enjoys Lechler comparisons, San Antonio Express, November 24, 2005, (6) Brantly Named To Ray Guy Award Watch List, KBTX, Sep 17, 2008, (7) Brantly Earns All-American Honors, KBTX, Dec 10, 2008   Cbl62 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Graham Harrel has never played a down in the CFL yet. Brantley is a 3 time ray guy nominee, which to me seems he's notable under WP:GNG. If a guy is a three time Heisman candidate, he definately would be notable. The Ray Guy award is the Heisman for punters. The fact that he went undrafted really shouldn't factor in for kicker and punter articles, since even some HOF kickers went undrafted.RF23 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep these are some serious awards and coverage, albiet a lot is "second team" or "honorable mention" -- but still, that is some widespread coverage of independent sources. It would be enough if he played tiddlywinks, so why not football?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2010 (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.