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)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
A sufficient WP:BEFORE yields no sources, no books on him, no hits from Newspapers.com, etc. Therapyisgood ( talk) 18:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
A sufficient WP:BEFORE yields no sources, no books on him, no hits from Newspapers.com, etc. Therapyisgood ( talk) 18:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)