Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Bratton

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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Bratton

Benjamin Bratton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I have no knowledge of the subject to establish whether or not this is notable. In any case, it's in need of a serious tidy, but that's not why I'm putting this to AfD. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP You don't need any knowledge to know this is wiki worthy, assuming the info is accurate. Postcard Cathy 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a copyvio, with no prejudice against re-creating as a valid article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment. I've just removed the material that was a straight copy-and-paste of a St. John's University page bearing an explicit copyright notice, leaving only one sentence in the article. I don't know enough about the consensus on notability of college athletes to register an opinion on this AfD, but if the article is kept, it should at least state what sport the guy competes in (the original article failed to do even this). Deor 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think it ought to have been speedied anyway - when nothing but one sentence is a copy-paste and there's no other article history, the offending version is still lingering in the article history and I don't like that. Anyway, still arging for delete unless someone wants to write a sourced article prior to closure. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - this is virtually speedy A7 - asserts absolutely zero significance. And sorry, "You don't need any knowledge to know this is wiki worthy"? Absolutely incorrect - I have no idea why this article should exist - it has no context, no assertion of notability, no verifiability, so it's got to go. The Rambling Man 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The current single-line stub is POV, but looking back on what was removed, there are claims of notability, and if he was captain of a US team in an international competition, even if he's only a college-level player, that is a weak notability. Corvus cornix 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - for the non-US collegiate aficionado's amongst us, could the article please provide some context? Strikes me playing for a college team and coming second is hardly notable. I'm prepared to accept that the US-college-sports-scene is considered (in the US at least) to be more significant than that of, say, the UK, but this article in its current state is unacceptably weak. The Rambling Man 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - and how does the only external link help me verify any of this? The Rambling Man 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In the US, collegiate fencing is about as high as it comes. I don't even know if there are any competitions outside of international competitions. This discusses his international accomplishments. Corvus cornix 17:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment looks handy with a pointy stick! Well, I find "Recently represented the U.S. as a member of the National Team at the World Championships in Turin, Italy" more notable than college achievements, and would be happy to rethink if someone could make the article verify the notability under WP:BIO. As it stands, it doesn't manage that at all. Thanks for your help explanation Oh Hooded One... The Rambling Man 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I cleaned it up a bit an added info. It appears he was a three time all-american in college and is one of the ebst in the world at using the epee. CraigMonroe 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've cleaned it further, so will be reconsidering... good effort to save this, to all you who contributed... The Rambling Man 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep (although I've spent too much of life on this already!!) - I've found sufficient verifiable sources to validate the notability of this. Just a quick note - if the article has zero sources, it has zero verifiability and is indefensible in my opinion. If y'all want to keep this or similar, I'd suggest being pro-active, like Mr Monroe, grab some sources, bang them in. It doesn't matter how untidy it is, as long as there's some verifiability there, bingo. So, to cut a long story short, keep it! The Rambling Man 20:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Meh. I'd rather it was just cleared as a copyvio and rewritten - I don't like seeing that original blatant copyright violation sitting in the article history. But the current version is good and should be kept. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • An admin can remove the copyvio from the history, preserving the rest of the info for GFDL purposes. Corvus cornix 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notability is established. Copyvio issues can be addressed separately. Alansohn 03:15, 3 July 2007 (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.