Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Pata

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. W.marsh 00:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Pata

Speedied as A7, but probably isn't. Howls of protest on DRV, so sending here.--Doc^g 00:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable dead-guy. --Doc^g 00:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC) on reflection, I don't care either way.
• Speedy delete per above. - Tutmosis 00:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • After reviewing below comments, I'm still leaning on delete based on WP:BIO. My first impression was that he was just some university student, didn't see much notability there but the comment about the news did give the article a tiny bit of merit. Still countless deaths happen all the time which get all over local news and per aeropagitica "Wikipedia is not a memorial to the dead". - Tutmosis 03:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. Over 1000 results on Google News [1]. --- RockMFR 00:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't be done. Wikinews uses a less restrictive license than the GFDL, and so cannot accept our material. —Cryptic 03:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to keep. He was a notable collegiate athlete. --- RockMFR 06:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:BIO which notes that college athletes can be notable under the guidelines. There are over 1000 media reports on him so we have plenty of sources. Further, it is an encyclopedia article not a news report. It worries that people thought this is a speedy candidate. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How many of those reports were written before his death? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a memorial to the dead. A non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. I don't see why it can't be speedied. (aeropagitica) 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep played for notable college, possessed notable statistics and highly heralded as a potential NFL talent. Had he lived and been drafted he would stay in wiki, but upon death he is requested for deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx787 (talk • contribs) (sole edit)
• Strong Keep per Capitalistroadsterm there are other college football players with articles, should Colt McCoy be deleted too?-- 70.134.136.85 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete anbd re-salt the earth, as I had already done before Doc glasgow undeleted it inappropriately. This is not a memorial site, there would be no article if the guy hadn't been murdered. He was not notable when he was alive, he is not notable just because he is dead. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doc's decision to undelete and to open this discussion as a speedy-deletion which was contested in good faith was procedurally correct. Now that we're all here to discuss it though, I see no evidence that this person meets our generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. His death, while tragic, does not make him automatically notable. Rossami (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Would those who say he was notable please explain where in the article it says that he is notable? User:Zoe|(talk) 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He was a college football player, he passed WP:BIO as an athlete, he would have entered the NFL Draft. There are other players on his team who have an article on Wikipedia, being a college football player makes him notable.--Coasttocoast 06:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Every player on all 400+ college football teams should have an article? User:Zoe|(talk) 06:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course not, but the fact that he would have made the NFL draft if he was still alive and his uncommon death and it's reports in the media make him definately more notible compared to those tons of players you are referring to. SportsAddicted | discuss 07:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That is pure speculation and enters into the realm of crystal balls, which wiki is not. Ohconfucius 08:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. If he was notable before death, then why was there no article? Second, making the NFL draft is not notable...many are drafted and never amount to a hill of beans. Wikipedia is NOT A CRYSTAL BALL. Future predictions of notability are irrelevant. Thus, the only notable thing about him is, he was shot and killed. Also, the Hurricanes are 5-5, clearly not a great team this year. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • There are many notible people who don't have an article yet, so that's not a reason for deletion. How come Paul Baltes did not have an article as of today? Wasn't he notible before? Wikipedia is indeed not a crystal ball, I agree with that. I don't know much about NFL drafts, but from what I've read about this subject is that it was a fact that Pata was selected to be in this draft if he was still alive. SportsAddicted | discuss 08:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An otherwise nonnotable person can become notable by dying a highly publicized death (see, for example, Ron Goldman). Media coverage of Pata's death makes him notable regardless of whether he would've been a suitable article subject had he lived. JamesMLane t c 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Very good point. --- RockMFR 08:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Coasttocoast; do I as a SportsAddicted person knew about him before his dead? No I didn't, but although I do know some of the NFL teams I can't name more than 2 players if I do my best. However, he passed WP:BIO in several ways. When you think he shouldn't be here, rewrite WP:BIO and take a lot of other articles down then as well. SportsAddicted | discuss 07:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Murder victim who has received a somewhat-surprising flood of press coverage in the United States. Not very notable as an athlete, but murders do catch the public's attention occasionally, and this one is already notorious. As mentioned, WP:NOT a memorial is not intended to prevent thorough coverage of notable crime victims. Xoloz 16:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per aereopagitica: not a memorial, not a crystall ball, not Wikinews. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notability is notability. How is being notable for one's death less valid than being notable for achievements during one's life? Even putting aside my opinion that all Division 1-A scholarship football players have a case for notability, this guy was not only a star player for one of the premier college teams in the country, but he got massive press coverage. Does it matter WHY he got press coverage? I know of no Wikipedia policy limiting the "reasons for notability" that are considered valid. -Elmer Clark 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is on a notable college football team and was a veteran player who by most accounts was of NFL caliber, and his death caused widespread media coverage. There is nothing wrong, unencyclopaedic, or non-noteable about becoming more well-known in death -- it just allows more verifiable, reliable sources to be used in the article. SliceNYC 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, ..." He clearly fits into WP:BIO. He is also notable due to the fact that one can expect to see his name appear in the years to come, whether it be on ESPN or in the newspaper. MateoCorazon 03:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The only thing notable about him is that he was shot. It's a shame society places so much value on football, when educators like Paul Baltes go unnoticed. A leading theorist in psychology with more than 20,000 google hits, who also came up with several ideas in psychology such as 'wisdom is not measured on intelligence tests.' Yet Wikipedia is becoming/has become an encyclopedia for the uneducated masses, focusing on unimportant subjects like 'would-be' draft picks and fictional cartoon characters and places from episode 20 of some TV show. Pathetic.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you come up with policies that support your deletion vote? In past AfD debates, logic like "we should keep/delete this page because of this other page" doesn't go far, especially when you're comparing two unrelated disciplines like academics and athletics. SliceNYC 14:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • First, I don't need to give a reason for my vote. Second, I think this case is NOT notable...there was no article until he was shot. Third, the team is 5-5, not a notable team, either. What does that tell you.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • AfD is a discussion, not just a straight-up vote. You don't need to give a reason but I and everyone else would be interested in hearing how you came to your conclusion. Also, Miami is one of the most notable college programs out there, even in an off year. The team went to bowl games in past years with Pata on the roster. SliceNYC 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neither College footballers nor murder victims are inherently notable. Although his death may have been covered by a number of journals, it still counts as one coverage per WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That seems to be a contradiction in terms. Care to elaborate? -Elmer Clark 09:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a single event. Event-based coverage has generally not been held to count as "multiple" coverages just because the story is carried in multiple papers. The stories are not really independent of each other and don't demonstrate that the subject is encyclopedic (as opposed to just newsworthy). Rossami (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I would actually dispute the contention that a single incident cannot confer encyclopedic noteworthiness; that is certainly an argument, but it isn't one I believe to be consensus-supported. Apart from the notorious examples like JonBenet Ramsey, Wikipedia has accepted many little gems on folks like Allen Hagaman; and no paper encyclopedia would ignore Crispus Attucks, yet these people are notable for the single event of their death only. The difference in the last two is, of course, the passage of a great deal of time; but, given the popularity of collegiate sports in America, it is all but certain that Pata won't be forgotten by a large segment of US males. This is, perhaps, a sad social commentary, but that isn't our concern. Xoloz 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Clarification: I didn't say that a single incident couldn't be notable. What I said was that news coverage of a single event does not count as "multiple coverages" when measuring against the "multiple non-trivial coverages" criterion. Whether the single event itself is sufficient to qualify the biography under one of the other criteria is a separate question. Rossami (talk)
        • Comment You are completely wrong, and ignorant. Crispus Attuck's death was notable as he was perceived as 'defending his country' and became a symbol of the Revolution, said by some to be the 'first to die' for the Revolution. In any case, he was part of the "Boston Massacre" and so is directly relevant to the root causes of the Revolution. Bryan Pata's death was a random event. Also, Attucks died in 1770 and is still remembered. It's pathetic you would even compare the two. Is football the only thing you know?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Geez, no personal attacks please. There was no need for that. And at any rate, what Xoloz said did make sense, you are misunderstanding. Rossami argued that being notable for one thing - your death - constitutes failure of "multiple non-trivial coverages" (which, incidentally, is untrue - that policy is referring to multiple SOURCES covering the topic, not necessarily the topic being covered for multiple reasons). Xoloz was citing Crispus Attucks as an example of someone who is clearly notable, yet is known only for his death. Of course Attucks should be kept; the absurdity of deleting his article was his point exactly. Regardless of the merits of this article, Rossami's theory does not seem to be correct. Your attack was both unprovoked and misguided and I think an apology would be in order... -Elmer Clark 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable college athlete.StuartDouglas 15:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If we eliminate Brian Pata, we should eliminate Len Bias as well. This is someone who appeared on television for the better part of four years, and someone who rose very close to the upper-echelon of people in his field.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.70.26 (talk • contribs)
  • I just thought someone said cross-comparisons were irrelevant? In any case, Len Bias was what, #2 pick in the draft? Certainly a lot higher than this case.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think his point is that his lasting fame came from his death, as did Pata's. I still do not understand why a notable death does not notable make? Could someone clarify that? -Elmer Clark 04:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I wouldn't call this 'lasting' fame, but temporary fame fueled by a media story. One would think that to qualify, out of the 6.3 billion people on this Earth, that one would have to do or be someone notable to get an encyclopedia article. Simply a combination of a non-star collegiate player and an unfortunate event does not make 'lasting' fame. Ok, maybe this vote will lose right now, because people are 'appealing to emotion' instead of logic. But as we see from the other, outdated stories, after a while, what is so notable about being a backup quarterback on a team that didn't win? Or someone made 13 tackles in 43 starts, not even one tackle a game? On a team that didn't win. It's not notable. The only thing notable is how young people over-value things they see on TV and undervalue things read in books.131.96.70.164 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Elmer. That is certainly what I was getting at. I think this debate is silly. Brian Pata was a notable sports figure who died in a notorious way. Let's erase Patrick Dennehy, Dernell Stenson and Brook Berringer while we're at it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.70.26 (talk • contribs)
        • I would agree with the deletions of Berringer and Dennehy, in particular Dennehy, which has more about his murderer than about him, but Stenson barely qualifies, as having played in the major leagues. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep, easily meets WP:BIO as involved in an unfortunate newsworthy incident. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, relist in a few months to see if coverage continues or if this was just a three-day newsflash. It's very much within the scope of what we do, writing biographies of people that are in the center of public attention. The biographical content is still pretty sparse though (nobody reported his birthday?). ~ trialsanderrors 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per trialsanderrors (Quentin X 22:44, 15 November 2006 (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.