Deletion of Andrew Hatch

Comment: Per the http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/assoc-wide/executive_committee/docs/2005/2005-10/s10_centennial.pdf NCAA, more than 3.5 million people have participated in the NCAA. You cannot logically argue that all 3.5 million of those people are notable for Wikipedia inclusion. Once again, it's not an ignore all rules argument. It's a "read the entire policy and use common sense" argument. Nothing in  says that meeting this criteria guarantees inclusion. And - as I have pointed out numerous times - the policy states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In addition, the policy also says, "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". I don't see anywhere that he meets the secondary source criteria. Everything is either trivial mentions or in the context of something else. All of the keep arguments seem to be ignoring the last part of the policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: A couple of editors have invoked  here, so I'd just like to toss in my two cents, as I disagree with the implementation of that policy in this instance. In my opinion, IAR is not something which should be bandied about (just to clarify, I'm not accusing anyone of doing this), but rather should be reserved for exceptional cases. IAR is there so that if something prevents us from improving the encyclopedia, we have a way around it; it's not a loophole to employ when we don't agree with established policies and guidelines. It seems that all of us find the current guideline for athletes unacceptable and should probably be changed. I have already said that I am for a more stringent guideline, one which would result in the uncontested deletion of this article. But we ought not ignore a guideline simply because we disagree with it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Again, where are the secondary sources? Why is everyone only reading part of  and ignoring the other parts
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Should never have been nominated. Nominator says himself that this athlete has played in a game; therefore, he has competed at the highest level in amateur sports, and quite easily passes . Full disclosure: I did not create the article, though I did do just about all of the work on it. However I am not an LSU fan, nor had I ever heard of this kid before I rewrote the page. Still, he certainly passes our notability guidelines for athletes. Being a missionary and all the rest isn't a claim to notability, and isn't presented as such. He is notable for playing at the highest level of amateur sports
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Isn't this a case of someone who fails the basic criteria for notability under  who passes the additional criteria - in this case, competeing at the highest amateur level? Or worst comes to worst, do we ignore all rules? I mean, I certainly respect the skills of a major college quarterback, and I'm open to being persuaded, which is why I didn't record a vote, but is there an argument that, but for the overly-generous guidelines, he's notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: After thinking about it for a day, I still don't see that this person is notable. It appears to me that the consensus of those commenting or voting is that he is notable only because he meets, in the most technical sense, the additional criteria for athletes. The essence of  is that you do not slavishly follow the rules to reach a result that you know is absurd, and we shouldn't do it here. I understand that there is precedent to the contrary, but in this case that amounts to . The most notable thing that can be said about Mr. Hatch is that he was a member of a highly ranked football team, played in part of one game and threw 2 passes. That shouldn't put you into Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: no redirect. Including this is just begging to have every D-I athlete in America use the |Other Stuff Exists argument. Pandora's Box, anyone
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)