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.
Keep based on some of the other articles included in this spate of noms, I seriously question if BEFORE was actually performed properly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What evidence do you have that he passes WP:GNG? He played in one game in the 1920s. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep passes WP:GNG and matches the pattern of NFL players are normally considered notabile. NFL stats. I'm not suprised that online sources are lacking for a football player from 1921, even online records for Purdue don't go back that far.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per logic above. Pioneering players in the NFL have historical reason to have encyclopedia articles on sites like Wikipedia to provide readers with a fuller collection of significantly related pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG. SIGCOV likely exists, it's not available to us yet on newspapers.com, but may be in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Striking my vote. I'm not sure how I feel at this point. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the closing admin, see this where User:Randy Kryn was canvassed by BeanieFan11 to vote where the AFDs were "close". here is the original diff. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And please see here where he ASKED me to – when a user asks someone to show them a list of AFDs, it is not canvassing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The notability requirement for sports subjects is the GNG. If significant coverage of the subject as a person are not available, then they aren't notable, period. We already determined this via community consensus regarding NSPORTS months ago. Unless someone can present the required significant coverage, this article should be deleted. And, thus far, no evidence of such sources has been given by anyone above. I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of expected coverage without any of said coverage being presented. If such an action is not heeded by the closer, then I expect I will have to take this to DRV afterwards. SilverserenC 01:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of expected coverage without any of said coverage being presented. – No, they should not be ignored. Considering the age and topic here, saying that coverage is likely to exist is a valid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)'Reply[reply]
WP:SPORTSCRIT #5; articles on sportspeople cannot be kept unless significant coverage is proven to exist. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unless some editor can furnish references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this person, as opposed to listing his jersey number and other such trivialities. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment No objection to a redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question. @Paulmcdonald and Hey man im josh: Would you be willing to provide links to the sources (or ways to find print sources) that you believe show that the individual has been significantly covered in multiple independent reliable sources? — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 06:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Red-tailed hawk, I often use NewsPapers.com to try to find print sources. Their archives are constantly growing, but there's still a lot of holes in their database. I believe, based on coverage that's been found in other similar situations, that coverage likely exists but is not yet available to us for Marv Smith. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, a good source of older papers online. When possible, nothing beats "boots on the ground" in the local area, so I have some local libraries I hit from time to time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*Delete per logic above. Non notable players in the NFL have no reason to have encyclopedia articles on sites like Wikipedia because without sources we can't provide readers with a full and significant pages. Randy Peck (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC) — Randy Peck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Delete Editors have claimed that the player meets GNG, but have been unable to provide sources demonstrating this. BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players or delete. The man played a single game for the Canton Bulldogs in their second season in the American Professional Football Association. There is no evidence of significant coverage presented in this discussion offered except the fact that he played a single game in that league. However, there is a community consensus established in the WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC that There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria... The argument is that a single professional match does not seem to guarantee that sufficient sources will exist to write a well-sourced article. By removing them, editors will need to demonstrate that other SNG criteria or the GNG are met. This is reflected in the currentWP:NGRIDIRON, which notes that we should defer to the basic criteria of WP:NSPORT (i.e. significant coverage in multiple independent RS) for guidance on whether an individual is notable, and also that coverage in the sorts of wide-sweeping database sources like PFR does not provide evidence of notability in and of itself. In light of this, I think that this article could be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#8 (i.e. failing to adhere to the relevant notability guideline), but should be converted into a redirect as a reasonable alternative to deletion. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources, per others. ValarianB (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: not redirect, so long as there are zero secondary sources about this topic, per our content policies. Levivich (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Per BeanieFan and Lepricavark. Carrite (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players, lacking any significant coverage. I hope and trust the closing admin discounts those keep proponents claiming -- either meretriciously or ignorantly -- that playing in the NFL automatically confers notability, when no notability guideline says so. My answer to those who claim a relative lack of newspaper coverage in the 1920s -- which is bullshit on the face of it, given the vastly greater number of newspapers in that day -- is that "Then a Wikipedia article on the subject cannot be sustained." Those who claim the subject meets the GNG are invited to demonstrate the citations they surely collected before making that claim. Ravenswing 17:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think anyone is suggesting a lack of newspaper coverage in the 1920s - if anything they are suggesting the opposite, that there was a lot of newspaper coverage in the 1920s so that some of them likely covered this subject BUT little of what was available then is reasonably accessible today. Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or redirect, per the lack of the required SIGCOV cited in the article and the explicit rejection of participation as a criterion for presumption of GNG (which overrules claims there might be coverage in inaccessible sources). JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Both citations in the article are just references that the man existed and once played football, neither meets the criteria for "significant coverage in reliable sources. Frankly I am a bit astonished at the apparent deception of several keep votes here, that claim a table of statistics establishes notability. Zaathras (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage has been found. Assertions of notability must be based on actual objective evidence, not just editors' claims that it probably exists somewhere. –dlthewave☎ 03:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.