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 delete. Wow, I don't think I can recall seeing a more well-attended AfD for such a short substub article. I'm not sure what attracted all the attention here, but I guess it's a good thing?
The discussion ultimately boils down to an argument about whether or not there is sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this individual per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. The most substantive source that was presented during this discussion is a 6-sentence article in the evening edition of a local newspaper that mentions Green as a possible future candidate to play baseball for the Orioles, along with a very brief synopsis of his history. Calling this "significant coverage" strains credulity to its breaking point, and this sentiment was quite convincingly argued by a number of participants in the discussion.
There were a number of editors calling for the article to be kept "per IAR". I mean, that's great and all, but in order to successfully invoke IAR, you really need to demonstrate that following the normal rules/policies/guidelines in this particular case would harm the encyclopedia, or prevent it from being improved. There is no evidence that that's the case, or that our normal policies shouldn't be applied in this case. Most keep voters that mentioned IAR basically said (and I'm obviously paraphrasing), "well, I know there isn't any significant coverage, but c'mon, he was one of the first NFL players, and I think that's cool, so we should just have an article on him anyway, so let's IAR." I don't think that's truly in the spirit of IAR. IAR doesn't mean "ignore the rules when you personally disagree with them, or when your personal preference differs from what the rules would have you do." If that were the case, Wikipedia would be a rather chaotic place.
Finally, I'd like to remind everyone that just because this article has been deleted, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't contain information about Larry Green. It just means that Larry Green has not been deemed sufficiently notable to have a standalone article devoted to him. But I'm sure it would not be difficult to find an appropriate place in a different article where these 5 sentences could live in some form. Also, to be clear, the result of this AfD does not preclude anyone from immediately recreating this article as a redirect to an appropriate target, if desired. —ScottyWong— 08:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no policy-based rationale was provided for deletion. No evidence that WP:BEFORE was conducted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that he's notable? It's not on me to prove notability, it's on you. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem awfully eager to get articles deleted and awfully unwilling to put an actual ounce of effort into demonstrating that the articles warrant deletion. Are you quite certain that you are actually here to build an encyclopedia? I have my doubts. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the part where you put an actual ounce of effort into demonstrating that the article warrants keeping or are you just here to cast aspersions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you claim "evidence" would constitute. Happening to agree with you, perhaps? Ravenswing 17:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, reason for deletion does not mention a specific policy. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is no SIGCOV in the article and none has been presented here. I searched, including in the archives at Newspapers.com, with various versions of his name but found nothing of significance. A redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players is also acceptable in my opinion. Alvaldi (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep having played in 4 games of the NFL, he meets the standards that we typically show as a keep result. If nothing else, I lean on the policy WP:IAR and do what we always do.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the new source additions, we have now have WP:GNG to throw in to the fray, as others have said.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a pioneering player in the NFL. Four games with the Canton Bulldogs certainly is notable. And per above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: 4 games in the NFL makes a person notable. Based on Beanie's work, I think enough significant coverage has been shown to believe that this person meets GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from keep to weak keep and struck my previous rationale. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 6 February 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) 18:52, 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]
That does appear to be canvassing, someone asking to be canvassed doesn't make it not canvassing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per IAR (although a bit more weak than some of the other noms), as an original NFL member with four games. Meets GNG/NBIO with sources listed below. I see the potential for something at least somewhat decent to be developed out of this (at least something like this in length), and if kept I will. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 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 01:35, 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, they should not be discounted, as IAR is a policy. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can provide references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this person. I cannot support keeping an article referenced only to a database containing no prose actually describing the person. No objection to a redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 03:11, 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) 04:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per IAR, as an original NFL member with four games, and nothing else at all, I just don't see why anyone should take note. I don't see the potential for something at least somewhat decent to be developed out of this. I thinks it will always be a microstub if kept Randy Peck (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC) — Randy Peck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Randy Peck: How do you know these terms when you've only been around a week and these are you're first edits to wikipedia-space? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: These pages are covered in links to documentation, essays, examples, policies, etc. I read some, and ended up here. If you have more questions about where to find information, I can try to help you, but some of the more experienced editors may be of more use to you. Randy Peck (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know the policies and how to find them, having been here several years myself and participating in several hundred deletion discussions – I just found your !votes a bit odd considering you've only been here a week. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we have the single-purpose account tag. The closing admin will be notified and judge accordingly whether their input is given consideration. ValarianB (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB and Horse Eye's Back: What the hell? I've edited over 20,000 pages over several years, created over 700 articles on various topics, and you're calling me an SPA? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say various topics and pages but it all looks like sports to me. Also you've edited 9,814 pages, not 20,000. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sports is a massively broad and diverse topic. I highly recommend that you read WP:SPATG before labeling another editor with 20,000 edits as a SPA. Alvaldi (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I neither tagged him nore commented on him. I just find it absolute something to tag an editor with over almost 23,000 edits a SPA for editing sports articles despite WP:SPA literaly using a single sport as an example of a diverse enough topic for not tagging editors as a SPA. Alvaldi (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB: Could you please explain the connection between panera bread, pork blood, and the NFL that makes me a single purpose account? Or strike this unsigned comment otherwise Randy Peck (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tag can refer to either the totality of one's edits and/or that the account has only focused on a narrow topic. You, with a few dozen edits in 8 days, fall in to the former. ValarianB (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just read that essay. It applies to an account who focuses on one article, or on many articles making a single sort of change. How is my delete vote here related to my changes at panera bread? They are different in scope and subject. The same is true of the VHS and curdled pork blood articles. I invite you to reread WP:SPA and strike your comment. Randy Peck (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The player and proof of his playing in four games are listed in the Pro-Football reference list. Four games played in the NFL is notable as can be, and citing that extremely long and overly complicated discussion (13 things to argue and vote upon? no thanks) to negate that playing four games in the NFL is plenty notable doesn't hold water (or gatorade). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NFL in 1920 was nowhere near the sort of entity that one would classify as the sort of dominant professional league that we know it as today. In fact, it wasn't even the NFL yet, but the American Professional Football Association. Teams regularly played games against opponents outside of the APFA, including a team composed entirely of members of the local Utica chapter of the Knights of Columbus (see also this clipping for another non-league game of the Utica KoC). But this sort of stuff hardly guarantees individual WP:SIGCOV, and that database's coverage isn't SIGCOV. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 14:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NFL was the league that emerged from the pioneering work of George Halas, the Sternaman brothers, and a few other key organizers, so the NFL is where history looks to for professional football's beginnings and its unbroken and continuing 100 year set of stats and procedures. If an athlete played four games in the NFL, and this is attributed in the official stats, then that is all that is needed for accurate encyclopedic coverage, and that this page is arguably being nominated for removal on the basis of a purposely convolutedly worded and multi-sub-sub sectioned RfC should not stand. So yes, it meets IAR discussion because removing perfectly good pages hurt the encyclopedia and ignores maintaining it. Simple as that, and this is what IAR was written to do and why it survives intact as an amazing example of Wikipedia's common sense and logic. He played four games, for Halas sake, and that's pageworthy (another guy who played eight has been nommed for deletion under the same argument - that one played for more than half-a-season. Just when does common sense kick in?). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you reject the validity of the WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC on procedural grounds, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE will be helpful. That being said, I don't think that there is any reason to state that the RfC is invalid, both given the enormous participation and the subsequent implementation of the results by the community at WP:NSPORT over this past year. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 15:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, a new RfC is needed on a much simpler question, and has been proposed at the ANI board which is discussing this topic. It is fine to say that IAR applies here, this fellow played four games in the NFL, another nommed athlete played over half a season, so something is broken here and that's why IAR exists. Beanie has it right, IAR takes precedent when something is broken to this extent. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As there are no reliable sources supporting the subject's notability, there is no valid reason to keep the article. Verifying that he existed ad played in some game sis not sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG; ping me if someone finds sources. Not even redirect, because I see zero secondary WP:RSes, so we can't meet our content policies on this. Levivich (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randy Kryn. No idea why the deletionists are on the rampage. Try building the encyclopedia for a change. Carrite (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This "per X" does not appear to be a valid opinion to delete, as the "X" in question, Randy Kryn, made a claim ("a pioneering player in the NFL") unsupported by evidence, either here or in the article. ValarianB (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would have been nice if X were pinged when mentioned. Pioneering is totally valid, Green played in 1920, which is discussed above and possibly a part of the "per" comment. IAR also applies here as the sports rfc mentioned is acknowledged by many as a total mess which will soon be revisited with a simple question and not 13 sub-sub-sections. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Pioneering" because he played American football in 1920??? Wow that's WP:RANDY nonsense. Levivich (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Levivich. May I note that your holier-than-you attitude in an edit imploring an editor to adhere to WP:CIVIL lasted, what, 16 hours? In any case, the NFL began in 1920, the year Green played ("The NFL was formed in 1920 as the American Professional Football Association (APFA)"). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a nonsensical argument nonsense is not uncivil. Accusing editors of being deletionists on a rampage is uncivil, but arguing that some white guy with ZERO sources should be IAR kept because he played 4 games for the Canton Bulldogs in 1920 and calling him "pioneering" is borderline offensive in its staggering failure of basic football history knowledge. In 1920, gridiron football had already been played for generations. "Pioneer" for a white guy playing a few games in the Bulldogs in 1920 is just complete nonsense. It's insulting to actual football pioneers like Fritz Pollard. If Larry Green were a pioneer, someone would have written something about him, like other football pioneers. It's not uncivil to point out that you are obviously making stuff up based on a lack of knowledge. Frankly it's disruptive of you to do so, as disruptive as the "4 games = notability" votes above and elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think being one of the first NFL players ever would count as being a "pioneer" (I read the definition as "a person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area" – he was among the first NFL players ever, so) – and what does being white have to do with anything here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was not one of the first NFL players ever. It was the AFPA in 1920, it wasn't even called NFL until 1922, and Green didn't play in 1922, and even if he did he still wouldn't be a pioneer. Oh brother. You can't seriously think that every player in the AFPA in 1920 is automatically notable? And if you don't know what race has to do with pioneers in football, then read about race and football. There are actual important people in this era in this sport, I don't get why you guys always scrape the bottom of the barrel with these no-name players. Go improve Fritz Pollard instead of bothering g with Larry Green. Damnit we just went through this with NFOOTY leading to NSPORTS2022. We aren't going to do this again in another sport. Playing a few games doesn't mean you automatically get a Wikipedia article! Levivich (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pioneer: "a person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area" – the APFA was what the NFL was known as from 1920-21, so it is still the NFL. Green played four games in 1920, the first season of the APFA (now NFL) – thus, he is a "pioneer." Having lighter skin doesn't automatically disqualify you from being one. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, Beanie is correct, the NFL records count back to 1920, players who played then are pioneers all. And would you keep this player if he were not white? A serious question, you imply that above. The uncivil part is linking me, because of a similar username I guess (?), to an article about somebody from Idaho. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this guy a pioneer is sword-skeleton theory. Even worse is the notion that anyone who played in the AFPA is a pioneer. This shows a stunning lack of knowledge of football history. There are actual pioneers in football, you know. Walter Camp, Jim Thorpe, Fritz Pollard... a guy being a pioneer for paying 4 games in 1920? That's WP:RANDY. Levivich (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time: Pioneer: "a person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area" – he was among the first people to ever play in the NFL (then APFA). And going by the definition does not mean someone has a stunning lack of knowledge of football history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking that the AFPA is a "new country or area" or even analogous to it shows a lack of knowledge of football history. There was nothing new or unexplored or undiscovered about the AFPA. The football league in America in 1920 was the same as in 1919 and 1921, the only difference is the name and who owned what exactly. Even the modern NFL, despite tracing in its roots to the AFPA, really is just what we call today the National Football Conference. The modern NFL was born with the AFL–NFL merger, that's why this is called the Super Bowl era. Now anyone who played in Super Bowl Imight be called a pioneer of the modern NFL or Super Bowl Era. Players who played gridiron football in the 19th century might be called pioneers of football. Black players and gay players and women players in the 20th century are properly called pioneers. The notion that someone is a pioneer because they happened to play 4 games in the 1920 is totally devoid of any support in the literature. Find me just one source that calls Larry Green, or all AFPA players, "pioneers". Levivich (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your saying that the APFA players can't be called NFL pioneers (among the first, remember?) because The football league in America in 1920 was the same as in 1919 and 1921, the only difference is the name and who owned what exactly? That right there shows a lack of football history knowledge – the NFL (APFA) did not exist prior to 1920. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 1919, the Canton Bulldogs played in the Ohio League. Is everyone who played in the Ohio League a pioneer of football? In 1921, the Bulldogs played in the AFPL; is everyone who played in the AFPL a pioneer? In 1922, they renamed it the NFL. Is everyone who played in 1922 a pioneer? Do you have an example of a reliable source referring to players who played in the 1920 AFPA as "pioneers" by virtue of being one of the first to play in the AFPA? I've never seen it. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had enough of this. I'm done arguing with you here and will be moving on to more important things. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Pioneering" generally means being a significant or leading presence in a field of interest, so if you have something of that nature to prove then by all means present it. Merely being a player on the first team or one of the first is not in itself significant. And for god's sake, several of you really need to stop embarrassing yourselves with the "IAR" pleas. IAR is for serious, project-wide issues. Not a "Move Directly to Go and Collect $200" shortcut to your desired outcome for an insignificant footballer. ValarianB (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, his tenure in the early NFL is noted at NFL.com and PFR, both used as sources on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't SIGCOV, the NFL link is broken and PFR though used is an obvious non-RS. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PFR is most certainly reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't actually appear to be settled, Sports Reference LLC and its subsidiaries are not a recognized WP:RS and even if they were that sort of coverage doesn't contribute to notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it doesn't count towards notability, but suggesting its unreliable is nonsense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We don't appear to have an established consensus on its reliability. If we do you can link a diff. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may start a discussion at WT:NFL, but we've accepted it as reliable for years and its been used on about 30,000 pages. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a reliability discussion occur at WT:NFL not WP:RSN? Are you forum shopping? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could do it there too if you want. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why would you do it at WT:NFL? That makes no sense unless you want to bias the outcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense that it would bias the outcome – considering that they know best about that area. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can they know notability better than the notability noticeboard? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what we're talking about here? Its reliability, not notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies... We are arguing about notability on one page and reliability on the other so the wires sometimes cross... How can they know reliability better than the reliability noticeboard? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 6 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. If he was a "pioneer" then perhaps there'd be some coverage discussing his historical contributions... Reywas92Talk 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I gave searching for sources another try. Not sure if this is the same guy, but a Larry Green that attended Georgetown University in 1916 and 1917 was a baseball player in the 1920's per this article. Alvaldi (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's him! And that's sigcov, too. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's him? Prove it. Beyond that, what are we talking, a casual mention of a player who tried out for the minors (and according to baseball-reference, never actually played a minor league game)? If you genuinely think that is GNG-worthy significant coverage, then frankly, your calibration of what constitutes sigcov or not can't be trusted. Ravenswing 17:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source: 185 lb, played at Georgetown 16-17 before serving in the war - Pro football archives: 180 lb, played at georgetown (football) in 1916 before serving in the war. Both named Larry Green(e). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the second source I list (below) states he played pro football and baseball. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see more SIGCOV at NewspaperArchive: here and here, plus lesser coverage here, here, here, here, here, [1][2][3][4]. I'd argue its a GNG pass as well, or at least of NBIO (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) nobody calls him a pioneer, eh? 2) Maybe I missed it, but I actually didn't see any mention of the 4 games he played for the Bulldogs? I don't think he is a pioneer for having played for them... 3) A high school coach? Seriously? 4) These are local news transfer reports talking about which high school he is going to coach. This is not biography material, and this guy -- a high school coach who played in college and then a few pro games -- is not the sort of person we need to be writing an article about. I'll never understand why you put time into people like Larry Green(e) when there are like 1,000 more important figures in football that we could be writing about. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the two you labelled WP:SIGCOV don't look anything of the sort to me. It's local newspaper coverage of high school faculty hirings, which are generally not considered notable. It's also interesting to me that neither of them mention playing in the NFL. It describes him as a former high school and college player, so that actually reinforces my belief that his NFL career wasn't considered notable even in his own day. I did not review the ones you described as lesser coverage considering the two pieces you thought significant came far below that bar in my eyes, but I do applaud you for looking for sources. The problem is that you're kind of working through the process backwards, like someone trying to find the evidence that fits their hypothesis instead of making your hypothesis based on the evidence. Look at the coverage you have and ask yourself if you'd create an article on the subject based on that. I don't think a reasonable editor would, because the standout assertion of notability and significant coverage in them appears to be that he was in discussion to be appointed a high school football coach for three quarters of a season or possibly longer if the board finds more money. --(loopback)ping/whereis 18:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two labelled SIGCOV could be considered useful, but the only claim to fame they make is that he was a coach not an NFL player. If anything they prove he wasn't notable as an NFL player, even at the time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What they cover him for is irrelevant – what really matters is if they cover him "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" – they clearly do in this case. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It actually isn't, your lack of understanding when it comes to WP:N is massive. "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading the notability section for events... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pulled text clearly covers topics which aren't events as well... Is this some sort of reading comprehension issue? The pulled text says "event or topic" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 6 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. 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
Delete, per the arguments above. Playing in the AFPL/early NFL was obviously not a guarantee of SIGCOV and was not regarded as noteworthy even after the NFL became much more popular and professional, as evidenced by the numerous 1950s–90s obits/profiles of "pioneering" players that don't mention football at all. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources which were added to the article just aren't in-depth enough to meet GNG, and playing a certain number of games at a certain level doesn't satisfy any of our notability criteria. –dlthewave☎ 03:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing provided by BeanieFan11 sufficiently qualifies as a GNG source. From the article, we know about the subject's service in WWI, the schools the subject attended, and career as a coach. The article also connects the subject to playing professional football. This is certainly a source that meets GNG. The expectation, based on the close of WP:NSPORTS2022 is the inclusion of "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." All of the other sources in the article, articles found through this discussion, and even the football databases only add to the notability of the subject (notability does not need to be contemporary). --Enos733 (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Routine hirings and firings reported by the local news do not establish notability of the subject. ValarianB (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ValarianB, While there is some community debate about the nature of SNGs and relationship with GNG, the basic concept for any article is that "article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice.'" As a community, we do recognize that professional American football players are worthy of notice, bringing to NSPORTS. Under the NSPORTS basic criteria, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." - Enos733 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and this person fails NSPORTS. Thank you for supporting my point. ValarianB (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Enos733, As a community, we do recognize that professional American football players are worthy of notice, bringing to NSPORTS. is not true. The community explicitly eliminated American football from NSPORT precisely because there was consensus "being a professional American football player" did not correspond to GNG coverage. Additionally, the hyperlocal Newburyport pieces fail NOTNEWS. The first one is almost entirely repeating "the athletic council said []" and so is definitely not independent (and doesn't have SIGCOV anyway), and the second one is the subject's announcement of his candidacy for a PE teacher position at the town's high school -- and thus must be treated the same way we treat newspaper blurbs on local political candidates. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the close of WP:NSPORTS2022 rejecting the concept that professional athletes are worthy of notice. If so, we would have seen consensus around eliminating the SNG and requiring that athletes meet GNG. That did not happen. The close clarified that at least one significant source was needed and consistent, participation does not provide a presumption of notability. - Enos733 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
??? There is 100% consensus that athletes are required to meet GNG. It's always been in the first and third lines of NSPORT and two of the FAQs, and post-RfC the bolded sentence The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. was added. The RfC close enacted the proposal that all athlete subjects must not only meet GNG, but the article must also cite at least one GNG source at all times. NSPORT serves only as a guideline for which subjects are likely to have SIGCOV, it makes no presumptions of direct notability (nor has it ever). JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is hard to square this statement with the close of Proposal 1, where the closer said "the current wording is retained, but the meaning of those words remains unresolved." If there was only the requirement to meet GNG, then the line about sourcing is superfluous. While you may not agree, I believe the community recognizes that leeway in evaluating whether a subject is worthy of an article depends on context (not just can we find X number of articles containing significant coverage). WP:N states this clearly, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines" - Enos733 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several distinctions that need to be disentangled here:
1. The pre-RfC NSPORT status quo was that sportspeople were ultimately required to meet GNG but as long as the subject verifiably met a sport-specific subguideline (SSG) criterion (which was ostensibly calibrated to predict GNG, again as required by the overarching NSPORT SNG) there was no set timeline for the article to demonstrate GNG was met within its citations. This meant an article with merely a reliably-verified assertion of meeting an SSG criterion could get through AfC and survive NPP without needing to prove the subject actually met GNG. There was also substantial leeway for presumptive SIGCOV given to these SSG-meeting subjects at AfD, to the extent that proving they didn't meet GNG often necessitated going way beyond the expectations of BEFORE. On the other hand, in the lead up to the RfC there were several successful efforts to tighten various SSG criteria with the explicit intent of recalibrating them in line with NSPORT's presumption of GNG.
2. Proposal 1 asked for a requirement to demonstrate GNG when challenged at AfD, with no room for any SSG-based presumptions. This would have introduced a definite timeline for GNG proof and would have eliminated the presumptions of SIGCOV afforded to pre-internet/non-English subjects at AfD. The closer apparently misunderstood how pre-RfC NSPORT operated and thought the proposal was (falsely) claiming that demonstrating GNG at AfD was already required, and so the policy mismatch noted in this close and the close of Proposal 8 is in reference to that.
3. Proposal 5 introduced the requirement that at least one GNG source needed to be cited in the article for any SSG-based expectation of fully meeting GNG to apply. NSPORT's existing ultimate requirement for GNG is acknowledged by the closer here Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG. and in Proposal 8 The purpose of a SNG is to give editors guidance on when significant coverage is likely to exist, and clarifying that requirement in the prose will help avoid misuse at AFD, which licensed rewording the NSPORT lead to say The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline.
As far as implementation of the RfC goes, subsequent RfCs and AfDs have only served to solidify the overall GNG requirement as well as the new requirement outlined in SPORTSBASIC #5 for athlete bios to cite a GNG source in order to survive AfC/NPP, avoid draftification/redirection/PRODs, and apply reasonable presumptions of further SIGCOV at AfD.
I hope this deep micro-history of NSPORT bureaucracy clears some things up? :) JoelleJay (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the close. :) - Enos733 (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you also disagree with what NSPORT actually says? JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BeanieFan11's new sources are enough to meet NSPORTS2022. Just because they don't cover the subject as a player doesn't make them ineligible to count towards GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to DraftFor now. See my comment here for my reasoning here. BeanieFan11 is more than capable of finding sources for these players, as demonstrated in the past, but time will be needed to find sources since some digging will need to be done. If this article is deleted, so is all of the information. It makes sense to me to move this to draft for now. SPF121188(talk this way)(my edits) 17:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage is far from great, but it's hard to say that multi-paragraph front-page coverage in reliable independent sources doesn't cut it for SIGCOV. I don't think it's particularly relevant that he wasn't prominent as a player since SIGCOV is SIGCOV - I think that's more meaningful for how the article actually describes him. I get that this is potentially WP:MILL stuff though and wonder how people would feel if this were just a simple businessman, however in this case I think an simple application of benefit of the doubt is in order. FOARP (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, which source are you talking about? Neither Newburyport Daily News item is independent or significant coverage. The first has at best two sentences on Green, with the rest almost entirely "the athletic council said []" and thus is equivalent to a press release. The second is essentially Green announcing his candidacy for a high school coach/PE teacher position (in a town that has <20,000 people today). Both pieces are of excruciatingly local interest and decidedly fail NOTNEWS (otherwise we could have an article on any of the other subjects of coverage in that paper, like the kid whose essay was a finalist at an American Legion state convention). JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay - This seems to be making an WP:AUD-style argument for what the notability of this person should be, but WP:AUD only applies to WP:CORP situations and as far as I know we have never generally extended it to cover bios. I get the WP:MILL arguments, but I'm extending the benefit of the doubt here. Bottom line is, looks like you could write a meaningful biography of this person based on multiple independent reliable sources.
Now, if you asked me if this article should ever have been created in the form it was, well, no, because I entirely agree that simply going through databases and creating a bio for every single person in the database was just plain bad methodology, a breach of WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:MASSCREATE. You can see that the guy who created this article did so only minutes before making Johnny Hendren, Harold Zerby, and Ike Martin. I also don't think this article will ever be particularly good or meaningful, but that those aren't DELREASONs. FOARP (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the wall of text, but since I respect you and your opinion I want to make my reasoning as clear as possible.
I don't think we need AUD for sources of this type to be excluded. For example, (all emphases mine) NOTNEWS says routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. NRV says the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity. Newspapers that report all the mundane happenings of small-town life are not sufficiently discriminating for this purpose, as is clear from our guidance Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Our guidelines on young athletes also require sources be (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. The first clause excludes all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications; as the subcriteria of YOUNGATH merely give contextual examples of the type of media attention kids receive rather than introducing new limitations (independence is required for all subjects, and school papers/websites aren't independent for adults either), the definition given for NSPORT's deployment of ROUTINE is applicable across the board. This interpretation has also been upheld in many AfDs.
Regardless, the first piece isn't secondary/independent/SIGCOV as it merely repeats statements from the athletic council and gives very little info on Green, but even if it counted toward GNG that would still only amount to one SIGCOV source since the two Newburyport articles are not independent of each other. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP -- even if you still feel the second source is SIGCOV, do you have any input on the lack of multiple SIRS? Or the argument for NOPAGE? JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am giving reduced weight to the IAR/inherent-notability !votes since they're at odds with broader global consensus, but additional sources have been presented late in the discussion and I want to give editors a chance to evaluate whether they're sufficient to meet the GNG. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stand by my prior Delete vote. Looking over the additional sources, these are all brief mentions in game summaries, routine announcements relating to his coaching career and the like. Reminder to editors that sources presented here should be a few examples of in-depth coverage, not a laundry list of search results that happen to mention the name. –dlthewave☎ 20:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a bit ridiculous to dismiss multi-paragraph front page coverage as just "all routine." BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What multi-paragraph front page coverage that is beyond the routine? Be extremely specific. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-paragraph front page coverage on a person is never routine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can be, especially in a local paper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Locality of coverage is 100% irrelevant here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't because most local coverage is routine and routine coverage doesn't count towards notability. Now what about this coverage isn't routine? And please cite specific paragraphs or sentences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most local coverage is not "routine" – it only applies to events and the guideline lists things such as coverage of scheduled events ... [w]edding announcements, sports scores, crime logs ... sports matches, film premieres, [and] press conferences – the sigcov articles do not fall under those. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But for some reason you're not saying what they do fall under? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some newspapers, particularly older ones, do in fact cover routine things on the front page. In this case I don't agree that a few paragraphs mentioning his new coaching position counts as significant coverage. –dlthewave☎ 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how the articles do not cover Green "directly and in detail" – because that's what determines whether its SIGCOV, and these certainly appear to cover him directly. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is not the significant coverage we need of the subject in order to have an article and the subject has done nothing which indicates notability is likely to be found. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how multi-paragraph front page coverage on multi-game NFL players does not count towards notability ("covers the topic directly and in detail") – be extremely specific. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the source, if its a national paper you're right but local papers generally don't count towards notability. What does them being a multi-game NFL player have to do with notability? Plenty of NFL players aren't notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
local papers generally don't count towards notability – with the exception of businesses (which this clearly is not) – NOWHERE says that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the coverage in local papers isn't significant, its coverage of people getting hired and fired at the local high school or local sports games for example. Now what do these newspaper articles talk about (I can't follow those links so you're going to have to either summarize or copy and paste), and what papers are they? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the coverage in local papers isn't significant – I find many articles in local papers to cover topics "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (definition of sigcov) – just like we have here. I might be able to email you the content if you would like (listing it here would be copyvio, I believe). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can copy and paste brief passages, that should be all you need to demonstrate that the coverage was of a non-routine nature. Not asking for the whole thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Former Georgetown University star will be assistant to Delmer F. Borah next fall at local school
Larry Greene, former Haverhill High school and Georgetown University star and at one time assistant football coach at Amesbury High school, will be the assistant to Head Coach Delmer F. Borah at Newburyport High school next fall, it was learned last evening. The Athletic Council, which controls sports in the High school, is now working to determine what salary the now assistant will be paid.
Greene may not be with the Crimson eleven the entire season, according to Elliot P Knight, chairman of the council, for it is possible that the salary which the council can afford will not warrant full time work. He is expected to be hired for at least three-quarters of the season, anyway Greene will succeed Robert Pike, former University of Pennsylvania star, as assistant to Borah.
The athletic council must pay the assistant coach out of the receipts of the football games, and while they cannot be accurately estimated at this time, the council is basing its figures on the receipts of the 1932 season when they were a little over $5000. The council is conservatively estimating the proceeds, of games for the coming season, figuring guarantees to be received from games away from home and otherwise. It is believed that the council will be able to afford about $500 for an assistant to the head coach.
The council chairman says that its budget has been shaved of all expenses possible and the board realizes the importance of an assistant, inasmuch as the 1933 schedule is a stiff one, with all dates having been filled but the Thanksgiving morning date. Chariman Knight says that the former Georgetown player has not yet been signed but that he will be the assistant to Borah this year.
"Larry" Greene Out for Coach's Berth at the Local High School
Amesbury, June 25–Lawrence E. "Larry" Greene, of Haverhill, a three-letter athlete at High school and college and a successful athletic coach was reported today to be one of the candidates for the position of coach and physical education supervisor at the High school here.
Mr Greene has been serving as assistant football coach at Newburyport High school for the past two seasons and has also been assistant director of physical education at the public playgrounds in Haverhill. Int the latter capacity he has had charge of shaping a recreational program for nearly 3000 children.
At Haverhill High, Mr Greene was a football, baseball and basketball star. He went from that school to Phillips Exeter academy, where he also played football, baseball and basketball. He was regarded as one of the outstanding football ends ever developed in this section.
Mr Greene went from Phillips Exeter to Georgetown university, where he played varsity sports for two full seasons. He gave up his studies and athletic career to enter the army during the World War. He served in France with B company, 302nd Machine Gun Battalion and during the war also helped in the organization and coaching of service athletic teams. At the close of the war, Mr Greene resumed his studies, attending Princeton. While at that college, he served as assistant football coach under Nat Poe, having charge of the ends. In 1920, Mr Greene returned to Haverhill, where he served as assistant coach to Bill Broderick at Haverhill High and Bodger Carroll at St James.
The candidate's first local connection was in 1926 when he was secured as an assistant to Charles B Broderick, who is now at Leominster. Broderick and Greene developed one of the best Amesbury High football teams in history that year. Mr Greene has also played professional football and baseball and is regarded as an outstanding coach of all sports.
It seems candidates for school board, selectmen, board of water and sewer commissioners, library board, etc. all receive blurbs. Even the children trying out for high school varsity sports will get coverage. People will announce that they decline to run in elections and their declensions will be published. These articles are sandwiched between "multi-paragraph front-page pieces" like "H. G. Fenders on police force for 26 years" and "Ryerson taken on auto charge" (detailing the apprehension in New Hampshire of a former Newburyport (MA) resident for speeding). This is a newspaper that publishes multiple paragraph-long recaps of local children's birthday parties in seemingly every issue, including details like who won particular games. Such mundane hyperlocal human interest stories should not count towards GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why BeanieFan11 flat out refused to post anything from it... Thats clearly not significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Larry Greene, the ex-Haverhill High and Georgetown football player of last Fall, is now located at Camp Devens, and is playing on a football team there." It's a routine transfer announcement. JoelleJay (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is also another reliable source. Thanks Enos733. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its a passing mention, it has no impact on notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources provided by BeanieFan above are more than passing, routine mentions and are sufficient to satisfy GNG. FrankAnchor 21:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the newspaper pieces referenced in the article, which suggest to me that there was probably more coverage of the subject at the time which we haven't yet found. At the very least, this should be draftified or redirected somewhere to preserve the article history. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. If the consensus is not in favor of keeping, please move to draftspace so I can improve this and show that a decent biographical article can be written. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have reviewed the sources provided, and I do not believe they are sufficient. The most detailed ones are in an extremely local paper; the whole lot of them are also entirely routine. You would expect a local paper to cover a change in a high-school coach, but that does not make the coach notable in any way. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Vanamonde93 sums up exactly what I was going to say - the only sniff of notability comes from local news about a high school football team. Does not reach the threshold - in fact, is far short. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a really bad AfD. Both those advocating keep and delete need to take a serious chill pill. There is no deletionist crusade to blow up hard work. There is no inclusionist crusade to keep every single bit of content around, regardless of notability. To untangle this, I have gone back to why we have notability requirements. Notability is supposed to be a test of whether we can write an encyclopedic article on the subject, not whether something is "worthy" of an article. [5] has information that could produce a healthy paragraph on his early life, and is not WP:ROUTINE coverage of a specific event. That's bullet point one. The newspapers (plural) are secondary, reliable, and independent of the subject (numbers 2 3 4 and 5). There is no rule that someone must have received big time coverage to be notable. Some people are more notable than others, and that is okay.I am going to do something unorthodox and argue that some fellow !keep voters' votes should be given less weight. I agree with the relister that WP:IAR arguments should be given less weight. But in particular, I am strongly opposed to the notion that this article should be kept because he played in the NFL. WP:NSPORTS2022 is the current consensus, and just because an RfC is forthcoming does not mean we can WP:LOCALCONSENSUS it out of existence. WP:IDONTLIKETHECURRENTBROADERCONSENSUS is no reason to keep an article, any more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a reason to delete one. HouseBlastertalk 01:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster, I agree with a lot of your reasoned approach to this, but I think there are a few things to consider here:
WP:NOPAGE. We don't have to have articles on everyone who receives "enough coverage to write an encyclopedic article". Otherwise we would have articles on all those other locals highlighted in the same newspapers (like the high school coach Greene was an assistant to) and every single town council candidate. Why is Greene more deserving of a standalone than any of those other people?
WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Notability is also measured against the policy of information being encyclopedic and afforded DUE weight.
It's not actually clear that the piece on his candidacy for the local high school PE teacher position is independent. Candidate bios are very frequently submitted by the candidate, not researched independently by the newspaper, which is part of why NPOL is so strict.
WP:NOTNEWS. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. Newspaper coverage of local candidates, changes in coaching staff, etc. are considered ROUTINE. JoelleJay (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that we should not have an article on this player even though he has sufficient coverage because NFL players are not "encyclopedic" and we "don't have to have it" is ludicrous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to say that I seriously and genuinely considered calling out your conduct during this AfD as being exemplary. Thank you, sincerely. I will address your points in sequence.
I completely agree that an article implies notability, but notability does not imply an article. From NOPAGE, "at times it is better to cover a notable topics as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context" (emphasis mine). However, I do not see what additional context is necessary to understand Green. And the fact that we do not have articles on other things is not relevant, as only this article is currently at AfD (see also WP:OSE).
Our article on encyclopedias defines them as "a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge". As we are summarizing knowledge about Green, I believe that this is encyclopedic. WP:DUE applies to the content of articles, not to the article itself.
I do not see any evidence that it is not independent, and given that it is a newspaper article that would on the surface appear to be independent, I would apply Occam's razor. In other words, I believe that the source appears reliable, so the burden of proof is on people to show it is not independent.
That being said, I do not fault you for coming to a different conclusion. This is not an obvious case. Best, HouseBlastertalk 20:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words and for engaging so thoughtfully, @HouseBlaster.
Regarding the quote about "routine", that was directly from NOTNEWS, not WP:ROUTINE. The guidance at WP:ROUTINE is of course centered on when to make standalones on events, but the standards for what constitutes a ROUTINE event are calibrated to/derived from NOTNEWS, where "routine" is employed to describe the sort of mundane coverage of any topic that doesn't contribute to notability.
The issue I and others have raised here is that Green(e)'s article was created because he played in "the NFL", however all of the coverage of him that has any substance is from hyperlocal "run-of-the-mill" pieces that have little to no mention of his "professional" career. Because such coverage would not be considered sufficient for any subject who didn't already have a claim to notability (an article based on a PE teacher candidate's profile and an announcement that they had been appointed assistant HS football coach would be rejected per NOT), we must consider the possibility that playing in the early NFL is not actually regarded as a noteworthy achievement by itself. This is bolstered by the arguments above on how totally different the "pioneer years" of football were compared to the "modern years" in terms of coverage, prestige, scope, etc. It was exactly these discoveries (that X's participation in Y did not predict SIGCOV of X) that led to our tightening of Olympian notability criteria, reductions in which leagues/tournaments were included in NFOOTY/NCRICKET, and eventually the elimination of all participation-based criteria. If you start from the presumption that all NFL players are notable, then any coverage at all can appear sufficient to flesh out a bio; but since GRIDIRON was removed, playing in the NFL in the 1920s does not meet any NSPORT/NBIO criterion and thus cannot be used to support notability. Accordingly, when you evaluate the non-trivial coverage by itself, agnostic to the claim to fame, what you get is a guy who was moderately successful at sports in high school and college, was a soldier in WWI, went on to become an assistant high school coach, and put himself forward as a candidate for HS head coach/PE teacher. JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see any automatic reason to assume the Larry Green who is the subject of this article is the same person as the Larry Greene mentioned in local newspapers - it's not unusual to have to people doing similar things with similar names, and I've not seen definitive evidence that the local newspaper articles above refer to the (semi-) professional gridiron player. So I think they can't be used as RS and therefore can't really count for notability anyway. Also there would appear to be a level of OR to get to the point where one could be sure that all the articles refer to the same person and create a biography. JMWt (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think there's two Lawrence Edward Green(e)s who played pro football and baseball from Massachusetts and at Georgetown in the 1910s-1920s? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prove to me that they are the same person without doing any original research. As someone who has actually done off-wiki historical research of this kind, I can tell you it isn't an easy task to definitely prove anything. And it certainly is outwith of Wikipedia due to WP:OR. If you've gone away and written an academic article or book about this person then fine we can likely use your research in an WP page. If you are doing the research whilst writing the page we can't. That's how it works. JMWt (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Football Archives / Pro-Football-Reference.com: Lawrence Edward Green(e) – from Haverhill HS, two years at Georgetown, played football (as an end) in 1910s/20s, served in WWI, from Massachusetts; Newburyport news articles: Lawrence E. Greene – from Haverhill HS, two years at Georgetown, played football (as an end), baseball, and basketball, served in WWI, two years at Georgetown, from Massachusetts. How are they not the same? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The local newspaper excerpts above do not specify the professional football team that the coach played for. Firstly that suggests that the newspaper article writers didn't know or didn't think it was worth noting even at the time. Secondly puts some doubt as to whether it is even about the same person. I can't prove a negative, but without OR I don't see how you can be sure it is the same person. There are breadcrumbs to follow but unless the newspaper specifies something about his play for the canton bulldogs, how can you be sure? The whole purpose of the notability criteria is to protect the quality of WP articles, and we do that by not jumping to conclusions, not doing OR and instead reflecting what other RS have written. JMWt (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck could there be two Lawrence E. Greene's who played two years of football at Georgetown in the 1910s, served in WWI, later played pro football, from Haverhill High School, from Massachusetts, and whose position was end? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They started with different teams and had different positions, and were from different places. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? Asserting that something is self evidently true doesn't mean it is. That's it. JMWt (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is: we've got here the same high school, same state from, same sport, same position, same amount of years in college, same college, same era, same name, both took a year off from college to serve in WWI ... these are the same person. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not, JMWt is right that much of what you're doing with these old sources is skating over OR ice. For example you don't ever seem to establish that these old papers are WP:RS, you basically just say they exist and thats good enough when the vast majority of old papers in the US don't meet out reliability standards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example you don't ever seem to establish that these old papers are WP:RS, you basically just say they exist and thats good enough when the vast majority of old papers in the US don't meet out reliability standards. – huh? That's not even close to true. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then this is the part where you provide diffs of you establishing the reliability of the sources you use in Football related deletion discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be the one proving that the "vast majority of all newspaper sources" are unreliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not how it works, the burden to demonstrate reliability always lies with the person who wants to use the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the coverage falls under something clearly disqualifying it from being reliable (for example, its a blog (published by a non-expert), random comments on social media, etc.), it is considered reliable unless a community discussion determines otherwise. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not how wikipedia works, there is no pre-judgement of sources as good. Editors are expected to evaluate each and every source they use before doing so and only to use the ones which meet out WP:RS standards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And these souces meet the RS standards. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is that you demonstrate that, not just say it. Be specific, which sources are reliable and why? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you still haven't shown me the consensus saying that "the vast majority of all newspapers are unreliable." BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of pre-WWII sources are unreliable, thats just the way it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't shown me anywhere saying that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to. I'm not the one trying to use a source here so I don't have to do anything, you are however required to demonstrate the source's reliability if you want to use it. Not sure how you can disagree with that statement though, do you not believe that old sources are in general less reliable than new ones? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a review of WP:SOURCES which is a subsection of the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is a section titled "Sources that are usually not reliable" and there is no metion of pre-WWII sources as being unreliable. That's a bold claim and requesting that it needs to be backed up is reasonable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly going nowhere. I'm done arguing over this point. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really have a choice... You either need to withdraw the sources you claim contribute to notability or demonstrate that they are WP:RS. Its that simple. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to explain to me how they would not be reliable. I've never seen anywhere or anyone say before that "the vast majority of old newspapers are unreliable." BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know why the sources provided do not meet WP:RS in the eyse of the other editor. We want to make sure we make Wikipedia better, so if it were true that we shouldn't use sources before WWII then we have a whole lot of sitewide cleanup to do, not just this article here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think that the vast majority of sources before WWII are WP:RS? I think only a tiny handful are, maybe 1% or 2% and site wide we use very very few sources from before WWII. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS need to be independent and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, most pre-modern newspapers don't meet either of those requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay that you believe that, I guess... but do you have a shred of support for it or is this exclusively some kind of personal belief?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot to wade through here but what matters is the sources, which I have reviewed. They do not meet WP:SPORTCRIT, which states A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The sources provided lack depth of coverage and are essentially just summaries of games, so do not reach the standard of "non-trivial", and neither are the sources of suitable calibre to establish notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the sources provided ... are essentially just summaries of games – what? No they're not. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
42 comments on this AfD? To your objection: yes, sorry, I was too succinct. A couple of routine announcements about coaching too. Definitely does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT. It is not even close. The subject lacks any significant coverage that is non trivial in reliable and independent secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per SIGCOV: covers the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content – there's also NBIO: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability – first, I believe that the coverage covers him directly and in detail (the articles are specifically about him, and contain a good deal of details); and secondly, even if those aren't enough, we've got lots of smaller and less in-depth sources which could be combined to show notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Which is not what we have here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How not? Numerous lesser in-depth sources were shown above (in addition to several in-depth ones). We definitely have enough to write a decent biography. I will if the article is kept or draftified. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At 54 replies in this thread (an average in excess of 3 replies for every delete !vote) , I am calling WP:BLUD. As per my comment, I evaluated the sources against the criteria, and they do not meet the guidelines. Rather than repeating your assertion, made numerous times above, that you are of a different opinion, I suggest you explain how, for instance, a source that says "Larry Green a coming catcher for Orioles if he makes good in the Blue Ridge League," demonstrates notability for an article, when the very text of that title is basically saying "we think this guy may be someone to take notice of one day if he does well." The article says "Dunn thinksmaybe he has a coming catcher..." and this is in The Baltimore Evening Sun, so, sorry, this does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT. And this, I think, is the best source. There is no breadth of coverage here, and there is no depth of coverage. If you think differently, don't repeat that 54 times. Find better sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:29, 14 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.