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). There's consensus that the sources are insufficient to support notability, and redirection is an uncontested ATD. This redirect target seems to have the most support; if there's a desire to discuss that issue further, feel free to start an RFD discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to vote on this one as of now, but I will say that sources for this individual seem to be lacking tremendously, so a deeper before search will shed some light on whether this one has sufficient sourcing or not. SPF121188(talk this way)(my edits) 21:01, 27 January 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) 23:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that he's notable? Therapyisgood (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a lot of nerve to demand that I spend time on this when you weren't willing to do any due diligence before nominating. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. That's also how this process works. The article is nominated for deletion because an editor believes it fails GNG. Other editors find sources to confront the nominator, who has a responsibility to do a BEFORE search. If you don't like it, don't participate. If you don't have the temperament to participate constructively in AFD discussions I suggest you bow out. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to pick a fight with someone, find another target. I'm not impressed with your tactics, and I hope you'll read my comment at your talk page with a slightly more open mind. You may not like what I have to say, but I know how things work around here. As far as this AfD is concerned, I stand by what I've already said. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep passes WP:GNG and also fits our typical pattern of having articles on NFL football players.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best I could find is this – it seems Comer also played several seasons of pro ball for the Toronto (Ohio) Tigers – this may help in searches. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 29 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. Willing to reconsider if SIGCOV is found and added to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 09:55, 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) 18:49, 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) 18:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being a multi-sport professional athlete is notable. SIGCOV likely exists, but we are limited by what's available to us at the moment on sites like NewsPapers.com. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know the Toronto Tigers were a football team, so he only played one sport (or did you find something saying he played two?) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, as one of 90 players from the pioneering Canton Bulldogs with encyclopedic articles, and his time with the Toronto Tigers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @BeanieFan11, I must have been looking at and replying to a previous version when I accidently removed those replies. Sorry about the inconvenience folks. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had to have been looking at a previous version to miss that I had already voted in this AfD prior to me accidently removing several replies. Thank you for taking special care to not re-add my original vote, as that would have ended up looking like I tried to vote twice. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 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. Saying "sigcov likely exists" is not appropriate for an AfD discussion. This is the place where sigcov needs to be presented, that is the entire point. If it can't be shown, then the subject is non-notable. I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of said coverage likely existing without actually having it be presented. If such an action is not heeded by the closer, then I expect I will have to take this to DRV afterwards. SilverserenC 01:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of said coverage likely existing without actually having it be presented. – No, they should not be ignored. Saying that coverage is likely to exist (considering the age and topic) is a perfectly valid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a valid argument for sportspeople, articles on which are required by WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 to include at least one example of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Complete failure to find SIGCOV in RS. My search on newspapers.com has returned only the article Beanie clipped above announcing his contract and another from the same paper mentioning him as one of a few players who left the team. My Google BEFORE is only getting blog posts and databases. LEPRICAVARK's keep is clearly a WP:POINTY stab at the nominator and does not actually address the subject of this article. Randy Kryn's keep seems to be on the basis that some other Canton Bulldogs are notable and the team itself is, but I think WP:NOTINHERITED applies there. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can provide references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this person. That passing mention in a newspaper article is nowhere near enough. I have no objection to a redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 03:04, 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 known 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 evidence of 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 that a redirect to that list would be useful (though the list itself could be improved). — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 05:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and also fits our typical pattern of having an articles on a NFL football player who fit under older but now deprecated notability guidelines. Randy Peck (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC) — Randy Peck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
How do you know this when you only created you're account a week ago and these are you're first edits in wikipedia-space? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You already asked for links to documentation in another thread. You can visit the Teahouse for help on navigating Wikipedia if you need it. 166.205.97.35 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players per above. I oppose deletion since he is a reasonable search term and appears on the the target list. FrankAnchor 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very brief and routine blurb in local news about taking a job is not sufficient to establish notability. ValarianB (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me. Alvaldi (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Objection for two reasons. First, the list is for people who played only one game; I have not seen a source which indicates Comer only played one game, we have evidence that he played only one season, which is materially different. So instead of the reader learning something, you'd be misinforming them. Secondly does that list even meet WP:NLIST? At any rate, List of Canton Bulldogs players seems the only accurate redirect target -Indy beetle (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle:PFR: G: 1; GS: 1 – you could afd the list if you really want, but its previously been kept (and I even voted to delete). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck part of my rationale. Secondly, according to the pro-football reference you just provided, his death date was June 28, 1950. There was a "John Hooks Comer", the police chief of Toronto, Ohio, who died that day -> Ap wire. I can't confirm whether these are the same person. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 99.9999% certain they're the same – both John Hooks Comer, and both related to Toronto, OH. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with you, but the AP wire treats "Hooks" like a middle name but other sources treat it like a nickname. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. I would be okay with either target. FrankAnchor 21:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to redirecting there. I do suspect that the list is notable inasmuch as WP:NLIST is concerned; I'd be shocked if there haven't been two substantial newspaper articles in the past hundred years about the general group of people who have played in only one NFL game. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 21:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to any of the redirect targets, but the lack of WP:SIGCOV and the most tenuous assertion of notability I can think of (one game? really?) this is not appropriate for a standalone article. --(loopback)ping/whereis 08:09, 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 a single freaking game 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." Ravenswing 17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, per the arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete due to lack of SIGCOV. Playing a certain number of games (one, in this case) at a certain level does not satisfy GNG. –dlthewave☎ 03:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to lack of SIGCOV, but frankly I'm also OK with getting rid of it entirely. The 2022 NSPORTS discussion decided decisively against participation-based notability criteria, and that's all that exists here. FOARP (talk) 18:17, 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.