Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Brandt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. In my opinion this should have been speedy deleted, but I digress... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garrett Brandt

Garrett Brandt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable and uncited self-proclaimed professional video gammer. Darthgriz98 02:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. None of his claims can be backed up. [Check Google hits] Only ~90 ghits for the name (52 "unique") and none of them appear to be about him. Presumably a joke article. ... discospinster talk 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. His other creation, Good Clan (which gave us the [g00d] tag which appears in two out of four listed accomplishments) was speedy-deleted for failing to assert notability. The standard WP:BIO criteria of playing in the "highest level" in the sport appears to not be met. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:HOLE. MER-C 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: WP:CSD#A7. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete db-bio. Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Delete as per nom. Ronbo76 12:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NN. Both he and his claims appear essentially unknown to Google. In today's environment, could ANY video-game player become notable thereby?--Anthony.bradbury 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, as I have no idea about prof. gaming: Is a total winning of $9500 big in the gamers world? Alf photoman 18:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, further, his image con tribution identifies its subject as 'myself', indicating that the whole article's a pure vanity thing. ThuranX 19:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under db-bio. Mr Stephen 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfortunately, CSD:A7 does not apply, because the article asserts the importance of the subject (all those awards, etc). If there was ever a poster child for how mis-guided the assertion clause was, this article is it. Non-notable vanity bio-cruft in the extreme, but by the letter of the law, it can't be speedied (at least not under A7). -- RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn vanity. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Thinly disguised vanity page Dalassa 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not a vanity page. By that logic any page on wikipedia about a single person could be considered as such. ejy2007 21:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. $9,500 from all those wins since (I guess February 06) is nothing. If he weren't a kid living off his parents, he'd probably be pumping gas to feed himself. Ohconfucius 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep $9500 is quite a bit in the world of gaming, especially considering just four tournaments. His notability has also been established within the football addition to the page. (I am the creator of the article.) ejy2007 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment You may comment as often as you wish, but please restrict yourself to one keep/delete. Mr Stephen 09:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Biography is legit. Regardless of video game wins (which some low-radar tournaments, such as college campus competitions, are not posted on the internet) other accomplishments include true statments about all-conference football and beekeeping. Taking personal stabs, such as that by Ohconfucius, violate wikipedia guidelines of personal conduct. Site should remain no matter how many "ghits" a name gets. jbraptor_4 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC) — jbraptor_4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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.