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 redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players. The keep !votes are problematic from a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS perspective, but even if I were to give them full weight, the large number of guideline-based delete/redirect !votes would still be sufficient to form a consensus. There isn't a consensus for outright deletion, so closing as redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IAR. In my opinion eight games (which was the majority of the season, +3 as a starter) should be enough to IAR keep. I don't think deleting NFL players of that much experience improves the encyclopedia in any way ("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it"). If I could have some time, I should be able to turn this into something decent. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 8 games in the NFL makes a person notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my vote, I'm just not as I was when I made this !vote. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since Brady retired? I know, it's a bummer, and this guy's eight games seem pretty wimpy compared to the GOAT. Chin up, Brady might just be taking a year off. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players as alternative to deletion. Fails GNG as well as WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 5) which mandates that sports bios have at least one piece of SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think playing the majority of a season in the National Football League is enough to IAR (which can trump "SPORTBASIC")? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• We are talking about the NFL of the 1920s which included many small city squads (like Canton) and was not the big league that it later became. I am simply abiding by the rules established by community consensus. If something even close to SIGCOV existed, an appeal to IAR might be more palatable, but nobody has come forward with anything ever close to SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in the majority of a season during an era in which WP:SIGCOV did not exist even close to the level it does today. This seems like a clear case of WP:IAR to me. FrankAnchor 13:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep played in the NFL. Real games, not practice or pre-season. We keep those. how many of these do we have?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NFL player articles or AFD nominations? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What policy or community consensus dictates that articles of players participating in a NFL game gets kept? Per the concensus established with WP:NSPORTS2022, mere participation in a game, including in the NFL, is not enough for inclusion in the absence of significant sources. Alvaldi (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would constitute as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which does not override the wider Wikipedia community consensus that these subjects must have the SIGCOV to pass GNG. Playing in the NFL 100 years ago was in no way similar to playing in it today, in terms of likelihood of notability. And those are not just my words. Alvaldi (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alvaldi. The broader Wikipedia community concluded that (1) playing in the NFL is not enough, (2) athlete bios must contain at least one piece of SIGCOV. For gridiron fans to then simply wave an IAR banner every time an NFL bio is challenged is simply flouting the broader community consensus. If this conduct persists, it is simply going to draw an even more draconian response. We as gridiron editors need to be able to police ourselves in accordance with the rules. Babcock does not appear to me to be an edge case that warrants the IAR card. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Babcock played part of one season for a small city team that finished in 20th place behind other small city teams like Pottsville, Akron, and Racine. The NFL of 1926 was not the major league it later became. Cbl62 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Babcock played part of one season for a small city team ... The NFL of 1926 was not the major league it later became. – I don't f-ing care – Babcock still played in the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, meaning he was among the best football players of his time – and wasn't just a one-gamer, either (you say we need to respect "consensus" by getting rid of at least the one gamers, but now you're suggesting to do it to the people who have played a majority of a season, too?) Also, I'm currently in the process of contacting Pro-Football-Reference.com to see what they can find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“I don’t f-care” (IDFC) is not a good response to notability/inclusion standards that are based on community consensus. IAR is not intended to allow small group of fans to resist standards adopted by the broad community. If you or anybody could find something remotely approaching SIGCOV for Babcock, that would be much more persuasive than IFDC. Cbl62 (talk)|
It's just extremely upsetting for me to see these AFD nominations. I'll end with this: I believe this article is worthy of an IAR exemption to the "standards adopted by the broad community" with eight NFL games – you may disagree – but that is my opinion and I will not change it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for examples and I gave them to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, playing eight games in the early NFL certainly meets the standards for encyclopedic inclusion. RfD attempts of pioneers of the game should receive full encyclopedic status, especially those who easily meet standards for inclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[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) 18:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[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) 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request Therapyisgood strike the accusation on this and other pages where it was posted, this was just answering a specific question from a user.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few issues with the page, most notabley the football databases disagree on who this individual is. Pro Football Reference has Babcock being born in NY in 1900 and dying in 1960. (This is what is linked in the page). Other databases have Babcock being born in Iowa in 1901 and dying in CA in 1970. (This is what is mentioned in the page). I wanted to come here and say IAR, but all that seems to be certain is Babcock went to Syracuse and played for Canton. Without other sources, verifiability is a concern. --Enos733 (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted Pro-Football-Reference.com about this, awaiting a reply. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[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. I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. If such an action is not heeded by the closer, then I expect I will have to take this to DRV afterwards. SilverserenC 01:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. – No, the closer should not be just ignoring users saying to keep per IAR. That is a policy-based argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find significant coverage of this person in several reliable sources. This is the bare minimum required to justify a freestanding Wikipedia biography. Invoking IAR can never override the projectwide consensus that supports the GNG in these cases. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The encyclopedia is not improved by keeping a permastub sourced to a single database entry that is devoid of prose, especially since the basic facts of his life are disputed. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invoking IAR can never override the projectwide consensus that supports the GNG in these cases. – Yes it can. The name literally says "Ignore all rules" (unless you're suggesting GNG is not one?). And I disagree with you on that the project is not improved by keeping NFL players with 8 games. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am surprised to see IAR invoked as a reason to ignore perhaps the only immovable rule of Wikipedia, WP:GNG. My own search has only turned up a marriage license and I don't see evidence of notability here. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 02:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're suggesting that "ignoring all rules" cannot be used when the issue is GNG? That doesn't make sense, or it would be called "ignore all rules except for GNG." BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am, and your badgering isn't helping this process in any way. Nobody in this discussion has provided any evidence of notability except for vague references to WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 02:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in this discussion has provided any evidence of notability except for vague references to WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. – What? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toList of Canton Bulldogs players, a complete list where this individual is mentioned. The article subject fails WP:NSPORT and fails WP:GNG, and could reasonably be deleted in light of WP:DEL-REASON#8 (i.e. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline). I will remind people present in this discussion of WP:CONLEVEL, namely that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope (internal links omitted, emphasis mine). The WP:NSPORTS2022 was long, contentious, and closed with a consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. What we're dealing with here is currently a situation where everyone agrees that zero sources are present that provide significant coverage, but some people are saying that we should decide in this limited time and place that the community consensus about sportspeople needing significant coverage does not apply here—that plainly isn't how consensus works on Wikipedia, and this article subject does not warrant an article in light of the community consensus.That all being said, I do think the list that mentions that this individual played for the Canton Bulldogs is a reasonable use of WP:ATD-R, and I believe that a redirect to that list would be useful (though the list itself could be improved). — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 03:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The arguments to keep require imposing a local consensus overriding a broader consensus that decided participation was insufficient to establish notability; such arguments are invalid. BilledMammal (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This player played eight games in the pioneering era of the sport so keeping his page should be automatic. The extremely overly complicated consensus used for this ridiculous nomination (nommed in good faith of course but still ridiculous, eight games in the NFL!) has been questioned and a requested re-do may be pending. Come on, eight games in the 1920s?, that's as notable as can be. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:ATD supports keeping this page. Let's focus on the fact that this professional athlete played for over half a season in the era of pioneering football, that his participation is verified by two sources (NFL and PFR), and that, when you think about it, nothing is broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per Red-tailed hawk. As a side comment IAR is appropriate for edge cases, this isn't such a situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The player played for over half a season in the pioneering years of the National Football League, confirmed by two sources which, neither here nor there, are accepted as reliable by NFL adherents, and yet...the deletion attempt continues. I'd suggest that it should be withdrawn per common sense. Played for over half a season, on the field in the mud, sourced well enough to matter, and here we are, thinking of dumping due weight overboard. I'd say that's an edge case. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not redirect, so long as there are zero secondary sources about this topic, per our content policies. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple games in the NFL confers notability. Carrite (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a false statement, Carrite, and has been ever since the NSPORTS RfC determined that the GNG must be met by all sports biographies. SilverserenC 00:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect I don't see any significant coverage, just a basic stats database, so there is no basis to keep the article. This being "the era of pioneering football" gives even less weight to any theory of automatic notability, because this does not indicate as much national competition or a career that included college as it would now. Reywas92Talk 15:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players as alternative to deletion. The content in a sports database is not nothing, it is just that the community determined that a database entry can not be used to determine notability. --Enos733 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[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. Nor is working in the mud notable (and I can't believe I need to say that), and 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." Ravenswing 17:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the note on newspaper coverage. I'm always almost surprised when I'm researching someone from the mid 1800s to early 1900s because it seems like everybody was covered in the newspaper, even if it was just to say "this person's parents came to town for the day." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its true that there were more newspapers then, but also true that less of those are online today/easily accessed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but many are, and we shouldn't keep an article on the premise that sources could, theoretically, exist - We need to know that they do. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, per the well-reasoned arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage can be found. Playing a certain number of games at a certain level does not satisfy our notability requirements. –dlthewave☎ 03:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. The complete lack of WP:SIGCOV makes this outside the scope for a standalone article. --(loopback)ping/whereis 14:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NSPORTS. FOARP (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[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.