Deletion of John Holmes (football player)

Comment: agreed, the article could stand a good re-write--but not a deletion.  As stated in ,  "Even a poor article can be of benefit, and not so bad that Wikipedia is better off without it." Unless the article is harmful in some way, it likely should be improved instead of deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PROBLEM)

Comment: Hey you read the essay!  Thanks! Four points here:  1) I'm willing to leave room for the argument that his two seasons of play, two bowl game appearances, and the controversy ''may'' qualify as a "speical noteworthy play or achievement" and would like to hear arguments both for and against it (other than just "No" if you don't mind), 2) the player notability guidelines are going through a major discussion right now on the notability essay's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Notability|talk page (why not participate?), 3) Those notability guidelines are not meant to "take away" notability from a player that has already clearly achieved it; and 4) all of the other arguments for deletion were seriously flawed and should not be considered reason to delete:  saying that college football is not an amatuer sport when the whole planet knows that it is; asserting that the article covers only a single event when it obviously provides details of two seasons of play; and saying that the player isn't notable even by his teammates--all those were totally invalid and inappropriate arguments that reek of  because it shows a bias against the subject which is not grounds for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)