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 players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1922. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Saunders[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Buck Saunders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC. Article has for 11 years remained as a sub-stub unsupported by any SIGCOV, and my searches failed to find any. (I tried redirecting to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1922, but the redirect was reverted by User:BeanieFan11. A redirect remains a reasonable alternative to deletion IMO.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Ravenswing as a courtesy, so they can respond. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 19:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." If the best you can manage are obituaries, odds are absent any SIGCOV that the subject is non-notable. What doesn't make sense -- with your insistence upon that phrase -- is your assertion that the mere existence of obituaries constitutes significant coverage. And that's garbage; I've never not lived in an area covered by multiple daily newspapers, and could produce obituaries in multiple papers for most deceased members of my non-remarkable family. Ravenswing 22:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you have found is two local obit pieces (from newspapers in Salinas and Santa Cruz) on a county agricultural agent. County agricultural agents are not generally notable, even if they do get an obituary write-up in the local newspaper. One of the obits mentions in passing that he was a good football player when he was in college. Tellingly, neither of the sources even mentions that he played in the NFL. That's the key point: He gets ZERO coverage for his supposed NFL career, because playing one game in the NFL in the 1920s was simply not a big deal -- not even worthy of a mention in his obits. Cbl62 (talk)
Since when are sources required to discuss certain points of topics to count as SIGCOV? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His one-game NFL "career" is being held up as the reason why he is notable and worthy of a stand-alone article. The fact that neither of the obituaries even mentions that he played professional football actually undercuts, rather than bolstering, the argument. Cbl62 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying he's notable because of multiple pieces of SIGCOV, not playing in the NFL. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you would be asserting he's notable if he hadn't played that one game in the NFL? That's the entire basis for the claim of notability, and digging through unrelated Census records and obituaries about his work as a county-level agricultural agent is simply reaching for threads to support your belief that every NFL player should have an article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're complaining about me using census records as sources, yet you have done it in your articles many times before and in fact, it was by reading one of your creations that I originally had the idea to start using records like that! BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of these records-based sources/claims is almost certainly incorrect as the US was not drafting 50 year-olds in WWII. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that source was about his son Ward Saunders Jr. I've removed it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still say notability isn't established. Any references to his career as an athlete are just brief mentions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And so you're saying that the in-depth articles here and here should not count towards GNG because they don't discus his athletic career in-depth? How does that make any sense? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access either one. It looks these are two local news writeups of his death at a committee hearing (same event so not sustained). The coverage is not particularly in-depth there either. This wouldn't qualify for a GNG pass, regardless of profession. At this point, we've got sourcing for a county-level government official who happened to die with unusual circumstances and was mentioned in passing in game reports in local newspapers when he was in college. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the clippings: [1] [2]. I disagree that they're not in-depth. Just looking at the second one (which is shorter), you can learn that he had been the county agricultural commissioner since 1923 (1), died at a committee hearing (2), had a chronic heart condition which caused his death (3), was a native of Ohio (4), had moved to CA at age five (5), was county sealer of weights and measures (6), was active in county and state employees associations (7), belonged to several Masonic orders (8), including the American Legion (9), Woodmen of the World (10), the Grange (11), and the Farm Bureau (12), and you know that he had a daughter and one son (13). That's SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's an international encyclopedia of notable topics. It's what keeps Wikipedia a trusted source as compared to sites like Everypedia. We have standards (whether we like them or not) set by the community to keep it that way, and this topic does not meet this standard. GPL93 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this topic does not meet this standard – disagree. Two pieces of SIGCOV = GNG pass (the "standard"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, by conforming to the premise that the GNG and WP:V applies to sports biographical articles the same way they do to every other – This meets both. I see no way this is not verifiable and we've got two in-depth articles (SIGCOV), which is all that is needed for GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not though. We regularly delete articles with this level of coverage for failing GNG. In fact, this is significantly lower than the amount of coverage needed for politicians and government officials (which is the most applicable in this situation). GPL93 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And we keep articles with this level of coverage, too. And in fact, this person was not just a politician, but an athlete who played in the National Football League; I've seen several discussions on NFL players with similar levels of coverage get kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're just going to have to live with our disagreement that obituaries of ordinary people constitute GNG passes. Ravenswing 23:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ordinary people – Since when it is "ordinary" to play in the National Football League? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could counter with "Since when is it ordinary to be an Apollo astronaut," a countercharge with exactly as much validity ... leaving it aside that in the early days, playing in the NFL was significantly less prestigious than college football, a sport in which it was always explicitly held that presumptive notability did not exist. I am stating that obituaries (especially since they are often not independent) cannot be used as the sole buttress of notability. Ravenswing 15:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in the early days, playing in the NFL was significantly less prestigious than college football – [citation needed] what? I mean, maybe playing as a starter for the national champion, but playing for any random CFB team was certainly not "significantly [more] prestigious" than being on a team in the National Football League! BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11, neither I nor any other editor is liable for your apparent ignorance of football history in the pre-WWII era ... of which I'm not really surprised, given your startling assertion in the Ed Rate AfD that sigcov for that subject existed based on a book that you admitted to never having read. Ravenswing 23:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no presumptive notability, but that is not what I am saying. The changes to WP:NSPORT only removed the presumption of notability. It did not change, nor was there any suggestion made in that discussion, that being on the roster of a top-level professional sport has no significance at all. WP:SPORTBASIC assumes there is existing coverage of professional athletes (just that some sources are not sufficient to establish notability). All of this suggests to me that verification the subject played in a top-level professional league (real-world notability) and has other significant coverage of their life equates to a GNG pass. --Enos733 (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree with you [that Saunders meets GNG] if the sources actually discussed (or even mentioned) his playing career in the NFL. But they don't. – Saying that in-depth sources should not count as SIGCOV because they don't discuss a certain point of someone's life is completely non-policy based. BTW, Enos733, my name's not Bernie! :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Saunders' sole and exclusive claim to "notability" is that he played one game of pro football -- a one- or two-hour event from his life in 1922. Let's be honest. If it weren't for that, nobody would have created this article, and you wouldn't be advocating to keep it. Nobody's out there advocating the notability of county agricultural agents based on a couple of local obituaries. The fact that those obituaries don't even mention that he played a pro football game demonstrates that nobody considered it to be an important part of his life. Playing a game in the NFL of the 1920s (when the NFL had teams in small cities throughout the Midwest) was not a big deal at the time. Nor was it a big deal when Saunders died in 1959. You are trying to convert something into a big, notable deal when it simply wasn't. Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's nonsense is that you think we should get rid of a high-quality article (nine well-sourced paragraphs and an image) on a National Football League player, who has at least two pieces of SIGCOV, in favor of "Buck Saunders Back Toledo Maroons 1922 No California" – which has almost no value to the reader – and is certainly not an improvement to the website. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a high quality article. That's writing all one can about a non-notable person. I surely don't meet the GNG, but I could write exactly the same article about myself: where I was born, where I lived the first few years of my life, where I went to high school and college, my extracurricular activities, where I went to work, the government posts I held, being an elected official in my community, the books I wrote, the organizations to which I've belonged ... and hey look, I could upload images as well. There are even sources for all of these (if, in like fashion to Mr. Saunders, casual mentions in local newspapers). I've done a lot of weird things in my life: been a featured speaker at the World Science Fiction Convention, been a color commentator for regionally televised sports broadcasts, been a promoter and booker for a long-running concert series.
None of that makes me notable. What does is fulfilling extant notability criteria. I don't do that. What would is meeting the GNG. I don't feel I do that either, even though I've had what you might call sigcov in more than one newspaper, including an interview with me in a daily paper and another spot on the nightly news broadcast of the region's main TV station. 0+0+0+0+0=0, and that's the situation we're looking at here. Ravenswing 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I’m sorry, BeanieFan, but I have to side with Cbl62 on this one. If we’re trying to enforce WP’s rules and consensus driven policies, this article should be redirected (for the time being.) this persons only claim to fame seems to be his one NFL game, and you can’t claim notability based on that since NGRIDIRON is gone, and the remainder of our sources barely mention it. I don’t like having to vote for a redirect in this case, but if we enforce policies in an honest fashion, that’s where we land. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 23:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the "consensus driven policies" support redirecting this – his claim to notability is having multiple pieces of SIGCOV and thus passing GNG (see my replies to my "Thoughts on keeping it?" comment to see why I think they should be considered SIGCOV) – Cbl's claim that the sources should not count as SIGCOV because they don't mention a certain point of his life has no basis in policy. Additionally, as I said earlier, per NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability – there's in addition to the SIGCOV obits many brief articles and mentions of him in newspapers, so by NBIO those should be able to be combined to form an additional piece of SIGCOV if the others aren't enough. Either way, he's notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, participation does not equal notability. Equally, participation does not equal non-notability. In this case, we have multiple reliable, independently-sourced coverage of the subject (as shown by BeanieFan) from multiple contemporary news outlets, and the Mercury News naming the subject as one of the most famous alumni from his high school. With some great work by the editors of this project, we do have a complete view of the subject's life and accomplishments, far from a perma-stub. - Enos733 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2022 (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.
Category