Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Brockmeyer


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  07:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Brockmeyer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn’t meet Notability guildlines in its current state, unlikely to even if improved Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:RS as well as my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps post on his Facebook page and ask him if he has ever been mentioned in any reliable sources.  I found him listed at Bloomberg News  but just basic information about him.   D r e a m Focus  01:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. Not notable. Top 30 or top 40? That bar would be too low for any article and certainly a BLP. Otr500 (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak keep I added sources. Not notable per nomination.  I've tried to find sources and gave consideration to alternatives per WP:Before.  Take a look at added text and sources.  May now meet WP:GNG.  I send an inquiry to the subject about sources, and we will see if he responds.  Agency represents 40 baseball players, and is largest sports agency in Missouri. but went nowhere.  I have not been able to find faculty biographies at the two institutions where he teaches.  Those could be a WP:RS. 7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So far none of these sources convince me. They’re either self-published, blogs, pay to play vanity books, and/or lack significant coverage. Looks to me like someone has been successful at self-promoting not just on Wikipedia. You’re making a case for the agency above, but remember this is a page about the man not his businesss. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I look at the list of Sports agents and their individual articles, a lot of them just consist of a mention of a prominent client(s). This article is close to, if not better than, that.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've flipped through some of the Sports agent articles you've referenced. The difference that these other articles are supported by citations from, among other things, The New York Times, the New York Post, CBS Sports, Sports Illustrated, MLB.com, and plenty of other reliable sources. Information about Nick Brockmeyer comes from Nick Brockmeyer. His agency, which represents "about 40" athletes (according to him) has no indication that any of these athletes are notable at all. Similarly, the claim that this agency is the largest agency in Missouri comes solely from Brockmeyer as well. Think of it this way. If this article was deleted, where would you go to read about this guy? Other sports agents can be found in major publications. This guy can't. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I have to agree with Grey Wanderer. This attorney (and his sports management company) lack substantial coverage outside of self-published sources. Aside from two articles from the mid-2000s, I'm not sure this company even exists -- let alone can prove the claim that it's the "largest" in Missouri. (Largest by number of players represented? Largest by total revenue? It's not clear.) Seems like a self-promotion article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Follow Up After checking the history of the page, I think there's a strong likelihood that it was created by the subject of the page. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the company exists. I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the sources.  This article exists in pari materia with the article about the agency, which was deleted, see here. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Outside of interviews with Nick and articles published by Nick (I believe the Bloomberg information is self-reported), there are barely any references to this business. The references that do exist are quite old. For example, the most recent source in the article, aside from Bloomberg which is undated, is March of 2011. Ultimately there's a real lack of RS on this individual or his business. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a single material RS of which he is the subject. Can't construct a borderline GNG case.  The refs are either primary or passing mentions.  Article is very promotional.  Will this article exist long-term in WP (unless something material happens to the subject), I don't think so.  On the evidence in this article and available online, he has no inherent notability.  He is trying to use WP to establish notability; it should be the other way around. "In 2006, the St. Charles Business Magazine named Nick to the "Top 40 Professionals under 40."; COI/UDP issue.  Britishfinance (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom. Legion X (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.