Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Young (American football, born 1902)

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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Young (American football, born 1902)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a microstub that duplicates a database violates WP:NOTDATABASE. Violates WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 due to the lack of sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE search found no suitable sources.

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and WP:NOTDATABASE BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems he was also known as John Young ([1]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason newspapers.com doesn't seem to recognize properly "Al" ([2] for an example) – this is making searching really difficult. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seeing a lot of mentions and brief articles, for example [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] etc. I would argue this to be a pass of NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I believe that a decent biographical article can be produced based off of these sources, and when I have time will try to expand it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the second half of that sentence; If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. I don't have access to all of those, but of those I do most appear trivial and none contain WP:SIGCOV; not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, and a violation of WP:NSPORT which forbids us from having articles on sportspeople unless we can find at least one source containing WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you that the coverage is not sigcov/enough for notability, and will leave it at that – I do not feel like infinite arguing at the present. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources that you linked do you consider to contain WP:SIGCOV? BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @BilledMammal, is it the Newspapers.com ones you're unable to view? The NewsaperArchive links should be available to anybody who logs in to the Wikipedia Library (I believe, as I can access them and don't recall requesting it). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources are primarily brief mentions and play-by-plays which, even if combined, do not add up to enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Lacks the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. I did go over the sources and in my opinion none of them is what I would consider significant. There are a few articles about his arrest for speeding and subsequent short jail time in 1925, but none of them go into much detail about him. The other sources are mostly normal game reports and brief mentions. Redirects are WP:CHEAP so I suggest redirecting the article to Los Angeles Buccaneers. Alvaldi (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the article is also acceptable in my opinion. Alvaldi (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Los Angeles Buccaneers: per WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG, brief mentions of Young in routine transfer and game reports do not demonstrate notability; there isn't enough source material to write a biography. The LA Buccs only played in one season, 1926, so just mention the players in that article. It'll give the readers the proper context, which a stand-alone article won't. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having written several hundred biographies myself, I can guarantee that something decent can be written on this player – unfortunately, the amount of players being nominated and all the editors attacking me is overwhelming and making it very difficult for me to find time to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I support merger is that anyone can expand this to an article if/when they find proper GNG sources. It's better than sending it to draftspace. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft-for now. This one is a very tough call, given the sources that BeanieFan11 provided (I can see both sides of this argument.) My thought is to move this to draft in order to give BeanieFan11 an opportunity to uncover some sources, which will obviously require a ton of work and time. In my experience, BeanieFan11 does great work expanding similar articles and turning them into decent BIO's. With the mass nominating happening recently, I understand Beanie's frustration given their passion in this subject/project, given that the opportunity cost of trying to find sources on EVERY one of these nominations is losing the articles and all of the information, since it wouldn't be archived. There shouldn't be a huge rush to delete this article, so give BeanieFan11 some time by putting this article in draft, and I will do what I can to help if I'm able. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 17:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU for suggesting this. That is a great idea. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though, a question: if it is moved to draftspace and I do write a decent draft on Young, how would we determine if it could ever go back to mainspace? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11 raises a good question, and I would assume you could either just go ahead and publish it again, or maybe put it through article for creation? to be assessed? SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 17:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Self-publish is the way to go when you think it'll survive AfD. I don't think we'd expect Beanie to go through the AfC process. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know Hey man im josh, just pointed it out as an option, so that at least a second opinion from a reviewer could support it, but I absolutely know that BeanieFan11 is more capable than most to make the article passable and expanded. That’s why I think moving to draft is a good option, giving Beanie some time to uncover very hard to find articles almost certainly will help, as he’s done it so many times before. There aren’t a ton of editors who are dedicated to early NFL coverage, and there should not a huge rush to delete all of these player articles. The fact that so many AfD’s in this topic are being raised so quickly, how can Beanie have the time to actually perform these thorough searches? I know there is a 7 day period for this AfD, but this all volunteer, so move this to draft and preserve all the information archived. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 19:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Los Angeles Buccaneers#Roster for now. No objection on moving the content to draftspace or userspace for User:BeanieFan11 or others to work on it. I believe the coverage that BeanieFan found for this person fall short of GNG, but its a good starting point. Frank Anchor 20:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. I'm seeing routine, local coverage of little encyclopedic value and certainly insufficient for GNG. I suspect draftification would just lead us back to AfD eventually so I don't see the utility there. JoelleJay (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Given BeanieFan's willingness to put in the work, and his record in building encyclopedic content, sending it to draft space makes sense. Beanie is one of our best workers on creating non-stub content for players in the early NFL. Give him a chance to work on it. Cbl62 (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect if there is a good target. Also happy to see it moved to draft if BeanieFan11 believes they can find more sources given time. At the moment only one source deals with the article subjects football career, as that isn't enough to pass GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftily, there isn't sufficient significant coverage to get over GNG or any of the SNG. Unless some can be found there is just no reason to have this article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus among the options mentioned (Delete, Draftify, Merge, Redirect and one lone Keep) but a No consensus close is not acceptable as the one consensus that comes through is that this article should be removed from main space. So, I'm relisting to see if one of the four options gets a lion's share of the opinions from those editors who are participating in this discussion. Otherwise, I would be closing this as a Super Vote which is inappropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify since BeanieFan11 seems willing to work on it and it may take time and effort to track down suitable sources. Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Rlendog; the article still has potential even though it is not justifiable in mainspace right now. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:20, 16 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.