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. The "delete" arguments are substantially stronger in the light of the applicable guidelines. These guidelines are, to summarize: (a) notability requires substantial coverage in sources (WP:GNG), and (b) notability is presumed for sportspeople who have participated in matches at a certain level (WP:NGRIDIRON).

The "keep" side's arguments are limited to invoking the NGRIDIRON guideline, but they do not address that NGRIDIRON only establishes a presumption of notability, which can therefore be rebutted. That's the argument the "delete" side makes: they argue that since no substantial coverage in reliable sources can be found about this man, the presumption of notability established by NGRIDIRON has successfully been rebutted.

And it is this argument by the "delete" side that is not addressed adequately by the "keep" side. To do so, they'd need to cite specific notability-establishing sources to rebut the rebuttal of the presumption of notability. Because they fail to do so, I must give their views less weight and find a rough consensus in favor of deletion, taking into consideration the weight of the arguments presented. Sandstein 09:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Vainowski[edit]

Pete Vainowski (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)

Played in just a single game. I could not find a single source on newspapers.com or google beyond stats databases, so I don't believe the "presumption" of notability in WP:NGRIDIRON is upheld. None of them even say which game he played in, just that it was one in the 1926 season. Reywas92^Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Oh so now you're targeting my creations? Keep per pass of NGRIDIRON. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where there's smoke there's fire. NGRIDIRON is not an iron law that any player is exempt from significant coverage, it's a "presumption" of notability ("conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept"). The top of the page says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." However, this is not the case here: sufficient sources do not exist. Applicable policies and guidelines section: "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." Reywas92^Talk 16:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to note that in cases where a professional career is known, we've never deleted an article on a National Football League player. Similarly, I believe no MLB player, no NBA player, and no NHL players have ever been denied of an article (except in cases where the given names were not known). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Reywas92: By the way I found which game he played in, a week two loss versus the Detroit Panthers, see here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "professional career" one game is not a career. Merge/redirect to 1926 Louisville Colonels season would be a good ATD, that needs a roster. Reywas92^Talk 18:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where a professional game has been found, no player in either of the "Big Four" Leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) has had an article deleted, merged, or redirected. (excluding players without known given names) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also found that a person known as "Vainowski" or "Vanowski" played professional football in several other seasons between 1923 and 1931. See him on the Pullman-Roseland Panthers in 1924: [1]; the Panthers again in 1929: [2]; a Harvey, Illinois professional team in 1925: [3]; and the Rockford Gophers in 1923: [4]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is original research and I have removed it. You do not know these are the same person. Reywas92^Talk 23:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Did I say it was the same person? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • So it's not relevant to include, especially those with different spellings! Reywas92^Talk 23:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Typos were much more common back in the 1920s, which could explain the differences in spelling. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NGRIDIRON. This is not a sub-stub that has existed for five or ten years without any development.The article has existed for barely a year and should be given time to develop further -- the article has grown eight fold (from 200 characters of narrative text to more than 1,650) in the day since the nomination. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Meeting WP:NGRIDIRON means nothing if the player fails GNG, per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES and that football is not very different from football, so to speak. Geschichte (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find NGRIDIRON much different than NFOOTY. In American football, you only are notable when you've played in either the NFL (which Vainowski has), CFL, AFL, AAFC, or USFL (or meet GNG). For NFOOTY players, you can play one minute in probably 50+ different leagues (including some tier 3 or tier 4 minor leagues) and still be considered notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like to note again that no NFL player ever, has been denied of an article when his professional career is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we keep MLB players appearing in one game, I would assume it's the same for NFL players. Although most baseball articles I've seen mention the game in which the player played. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oaktree b: the article does mention which game he played in, a loss against the Detroit Panthers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article meets WP:NGRIDIRON by playing in at least one game (though probably several games). It is now a decent stub with some biographical info, so merging to a list would not make sense. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. @BeanieFan11, Oaktree b, Cbl62, and Editorofthewiki: Per NSPORT, meeting any sport-specific guideline does not exempt an article from the requirement of ultimately meeting GNG. This is in the first sentence of NSPORT, in the FAQs at the top of the page, and the first paragraph of the Applicable policies and guidelines section. It is completely irrelevant whether or not we've ever deleted Big 4 athletes; all that matters is the subject having SIGCOV in IRS. JoelleJay (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not disputing that "ultimately" it needs to pass GNG, but this is a relatively new article that is a clear pass of NGRIDIRON that has been developing nicely. This is not like so many cricket substubs that have existed for more than 10 years and remained in bare-bones condition. The presumption of notability should be credited in this case. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's had a full year for editors to expand. Are we supposed to wait 2 or 5 or 10 years for a stub to get attention? Why not userify/draftify and list it at the gridiron project as an article to find sources for, like many subjects are at Women in Red? No other biographies outside sports enjoy such a grace period for editors to add material after a topic has been brought to AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify??? I see no reason for that, the article appears to be in great shape IMO. Also, unlike Women In Red, it seems few editors in WP:NFL work on historical articles of this era (besides me and Cbl62), so I doubt it would get much attention in draft. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the hope is that a hypothetical editor in the future who happens to have access to local/offline refs will stumble across this article, realize it lacks SIGCOV sourcing, and expand it accordingly? What if they can't find sources? Would it be acceptable to delete it then?

Most of the current sources, and the bulk of the article, are in this section:

A player identified by the name "Vainowski" or "Vanowski" also played line positions for other professional football teams in Illinois from 1923 through the early 1930s, including the following appearances:
"Vanowski" played for the Rockford Gophers during the 1923 season, recording a safety against the Moline Indians.
"Vainowski" (sometimes referred to "Vanowski") played at the right guard and left guard positions for Joey Sternaman's Pullman Panthers of the Midwest Football League in 1924. He was described as one of the "shining lights of the Pullman squad."
"Vanowski" played for the Harvey Athletic Association (Harvey, Illinois) professional football team during the 1925 season.
"Vainowski" returned to the Pullman professional football team in 1929.
"Vainowski", identified as a 238-pound tackle out of Loyola, again played for Chicago's Pullman Panthers in 1931.

, which is just trivial mentions and smacks of WP:OR, and the only coverage of "him" is from two bare-bones obits that don't even mention his NFL career. JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: @Reywas92: Vainowski is admittedly an edge case, and so I understand your skepticism. If it were to be deleted, it would not be a significant blow to Wikipedia's coverage of American football. That being said, this discussion raises two important points.

First, not every biographical article needs to be capable of expansion into a Feature Article. If this article is never expanded beyond where it is today, it still represents legitimate and valuable encyclopedic content IMO. The NFL is the tippy top of the pyramid in the sport of professional American football, and Vainowski was one of the pioneer players in the early days of the sport. The current article hits the essential points. Vainowski played professional football for nine years from 1923 to 1931. Unlike the modern game, players did not become rich from playing professional football in the 1920s. Accordingly, and as reflected in the article, Vainowski returned to a normal life, working for the telephone company for 34 years, marrying and having four children. There is not a lot more that can be said, or that needs to be said, about Vainowski.

Second, it is important to keep in mind that NGRIDIRON is very tightly focused. The only players from the years prior to World War II who qualify for a presumption of notability are those from the NFL from 1921 to 1939. This in stark contrast to rugby and soccer, where we have SNGs that purport to establish notability for tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?) of players who appeared in as little as one game in dozens of leagues at varying levels (top of the pyramid and on down to the middle of the pyramid) and for more than two centuries of competition. The rugby and soccer SNGs have resulted in a plethora of sub-stubs and have drawn the ire of many editors. While some sports have failed to properly tailor their SNGs, American football is not one of those sports. NGRIDIRON was tightly focused alreaady, and in the past year we have narrowed it even further by eliminating the Arena Football League and squashing efforts to add the World Football League. Earlier this year, I also proposed raising the bar to two games (which BTW would have excluded Vainowski), but that proposal did not find consensus.

My overall point: The NFL notability guideline is not a problem area for Wikipedia. Vainowski presents an edge case where reasonable minds can and will differ, but IMO the article already presents sufficient encyclopedic content and should be kept. Cbl62 (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the NFL was so different in this period that playing in it wasn't even worth mentioning in a 1950s obituary, and as a consequence all we can gather on him is insignificant scraps from non-NFL game reports, then I think the only value to the encyclopedia of having a standalone article is to satisfy a sense of completion rather than provide encyclopedic coverage. If he hadn't played this one game, he would 100% not have an article; and since this one game did not garner SIGCOV of him--to the extent that someone asking for info on his team's composition just 9 years later received almost nothing from someone in contact with its manager--then what does this article achieve that can't be mentioned in a redirect to the team/season/etc.? JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You raise valid points User:JoelleJay which is why I advocated a two-game minimum for NGRIDIRON. I wish my proposal had been accepted. There is however a legit POV that the NFL is different and special. Press coverage of the NFL in the 1920s was not as it became later but there is a reasonable view that the early pioneers of the NFL should be Wikipedia notable for their early contributions in getting the NFL started. On balance, though, no tears will be shed if this particular one game NFLer is deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON. SNGs are particularly useful for cases like this, where the subject is almost 100 years old and most contemporary sources are unavailable. Rlendog (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is apparently going to need some closer thought, because the NSPORTS SNG is particularly clear that GNG has to also be met (and it currently isn't). The idea that even after a year there's still a Keep !vote going "we should keep it since we might get more in the future", but if we can't find the sources now, why should we expect to in the future? With regard to BeanieFan's repeated argument that other articles under gridiron haven't been deleted, firstly I'm not confident that's the case, but secondly, almost all gridiron applicable individuals meet GNG, if you wanted to cite valid precedent you'd need to prove lots of "Yes to gridiron, no to GNG, but still kept" in the recent past. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been closely following American football AfDs for the past decade and can verify that we have not (to my recollection) ever deleted an NFL player. As noted above, the NFL is the tippy top of the American football pyramid. I did propose this summer raising the bar to two NFL games, but that proposal was soundly rejected by the community. Cbl62 (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: While I've only been on wikipedia for a year, I've searched extensively through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football/archive to check the consensus of American football AFDs—and—as I've repeatedly stressed, found that no NFL player has ever been denied of an article (I'll note that in c. 2009 several were deleted, but later restored when their professional career was found). If you're not sure that's the case, then you can look at every American football AFD with "delete" as the result in the past decade to be sure. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62 and BeanieFan11: my delete !vote included several aspects on this. I do indeed imagine that very few NFL players fail AfD, but I also imagine that very few of those fail GNG (more strictly, NBASIC). Here, we would seem to have a person who does fail GNG, whilst passing GRIDIRON. You've not contested that the NSPORTS criteria necessitate passing GNG as well. If you believe that it's sufficiently falling out of being descriptive, then the logical act would be for one of you two to formally request a policy change to exempt the GRIDIRON scope from GNG (in the same way as NPROF is). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but remove all the content about other players with similar names who may or may not be the same person, per WP:FRANKIE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Metropolitan90:, while no doubt you're right about what to remove if kept, could I ask what your specific grounds are for keep? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's presumed notable per WP:NGRIDIRON for having played one NFL game. And he's not just a name in one boxscore with zero other data; at least we know when he was born and when he died. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Metropolitan90: but NSPORTS/Gridiron is abundantly clear that they also need to pass GNG - how does it do that? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Riddle me this: what is the point of an SNG if they also have to pass GNG? This type of article is exactly why SNGs exist. Curbon7 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          Per NSPORT: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. In other words, the purpose of the SNG is so mass article creators can pad their stats quicker an article may be in mainspace sourced only to refs that verify the subject meets the SNG, such as databases, without the threat of immediate A7 deletion or AfD challenge. Other biographies with such sourcing should very quickly attract scrutiny from NPP/AfC reviewers/general patrolling editors, but if the SportsRef Stamp of Approval is there editors are much less likely to put in the effort to investigate whether the subject actually meets GNG. It also gives editors a bit more leeway with how long they can take to find offline/untranslated/etc. SIGCOV. But once notability is challenged, those who want to retain the article are expected to produce GNG sourcing or provide a very credible claim that SIGCOV exists (like pointing to a specific book that isn't accessible online but would be expected to contain adequate coverage). It seems editors trust GRIDIRON's predictive accuracy enough that NFL players are extremely rare AfD targets, but that doesn't mean they all actually meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The NSPORTS exception is generally only applied to soccer wherein hundreds of thousands of players could pass the SNG with a few minutes of appearance in a signal game, as well as a few other limited examples. WP:NGRIDIRON, and SNGs in general, are made for the purposes of this exact articles, otherwise there would be no purpose for an SNG if they also need to apply on GNG. SNGs are basically custom-made for historical bios such as this, whereupon we presume that sources exist in some offline form if the criteria is passed. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's incorrect. If you want the NSPORTS carveout to be just on football (I suppose I should say association football, here, to be clear) then the gridiron (and every other sport SNG) supporters should be encouraging a policy change, not just flat-out ignoring extremely clear text. To give examples of other sports where this has been applying, we've had an avalanche of NCRIC cases in the last 6 months on this exact point. I've also participated in AfDs on table tennis and athletics specifically with regard to NSPORTS/GNG. While a tad sarcastic, JoelleJay's reasoning on why SNGs like this exist is correct. So it's not "no purpose" in general, but once we actually get to an AfD, then other than NPROF/NCORP etc, then there's no purpose. I imagine the closer's going to have fun on this one. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to not passing GNG. Appreciate that he played in the NFL, but as others have pointed out he still needs significant coverage, which he apparently lacks at the moment. JonnyDKeen (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes the SNG. It may be an edge case on GNG, but there's no point to even having an SNG if we're going to delete the edge cases. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read the above discussions on the purpose of NSPORT and its relationship to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't assume that I didn't. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apparently I hadn't !voted on this yet. He can be listed at his team's page and season and expanded from there if anyone actually finds SIGCOV, but so far nothing has been found to support his meeting GNG--which is the guideline governing all sports bios once notability is challenged--and no one has invoked a PAG-based reason to keep. JoelleJay (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I'd like to note that for some reason Newspapers.com is having trouble identifying some results from the 1920s-30s, which makes it even more difficult to find sources on this topic. Considering that he played nine seasons at the professional level (and possibly some more in college at Loyola) and the issue with Newspapers.com that I just mentioned, I believe that sources should be presumed to exist and the "presumption" of notability should stand. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the first I've seen for just directly stating that sources can't be found and should just be assumed to exist. Wikipedia doesn't really have an effort threshold in retention-terms (so BEFORE has a reasonable expectation, but that's on nominators wanting to delete), so even if it would be a huge amount of effort to actually find sources, that doesn't mean they can be assumed. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already found sources, though none of you delete voters are happy with that, so I said additional ones are likely to exist due to playing nine seasons (few people can say they played one) at the professional level. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BeanieFan11: I thought I'd read all the sources you'd linked in - do any of them have significant coverage, in case I've missed any? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while online sources are not there, I think this is a perfect example of an SNG working, since he does meet WP:GRIDIRON. I haven't kept up my membership on Newspapers.com, but there appears to be some coverage of him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 24 December 2021 (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.