Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drane Scrivener

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. Keep arguments based on technical (and disputed) sng passes are given less weight for a BLP where the level of sourcing isn’t shown to pass gng. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drane Scrivener

[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)

Unable to find any significant coverage for this subject, fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON (having only played for the World Football League, which has not been vetted for inclusion at the SNG), and WP:NCOLLATH. Was a fourth-round NFL draft pick, but being a draft pick does not meet any notability guidelines. Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage and awards do not satisfy COLLATH guidelines. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as written, I don't see the type of coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. We've discussed participation in the World Football League before without really reaching a consensus to include as an "auto-keep" -- I'd be open to continuing that discussion, but a player that had one carry for 28 yards doesn't seem to necessarily be the example subject to build such a discussion. There are a number of editors who are better at research than I am, so if better data is found I'll certainly reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to neutral for now. I'm seeing more sources but don't have time to review them. I would lean toward CBL's research, it has always been reliable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Playing in the WFL may not satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON, but he passes WP:NCOLLATH as a first-team defensive back on the 1972 College Football All-America Team. He was a first-team pick by the Newspaper Enterprise Association (NEA) which was at that time one of the official selectors. See, e.g., here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't seem to me like a singular selection (even a first-teamer) necessarily passes COLLATH, a consensus would for sure. There are other athetes on that list with multiple selections that do not appear to have articles. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCOLLATH is not limited to consensus first-team picks. I would agree that selection by an unofficial selector could be viewed as a gray area, but the NEA was an official NCAA-recognized selector. So this is a clear pass of WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is one of the greatest players in the history of the University of Tulsa. He was an All-American, is in the school hall of fame and in their All-Century Team. He also played in the World Football League.Tecmo (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. And he was getting a good amount of coverage even going back to high school, e.g., [1]. Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlendog: By "even going back to high school" do you mean "only in high school" because that's what my search turned up. Absolutely nothing of substance after high school on him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge (and I've followed things pretty closely), we have NEVER before deleted an article on a Division I first-team All-American. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of Oklahomma newspapers that are available on-line from the pre-Internet era when Scrivener was active. Given that these periodicals are not available on-line, the presumption of notability flowing from NCOLLATH should control. The strength of the presumption is enhanced by the additional facts showing that he (i) was inducted into Tulsa's HOF, (ii) was named to Tulsa's All-Century team, and (iii) played professional football in the WFL. Cbl62 (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:OUTCOMESBASED. I would like to believe there is significant coverage out there, but this is the appropriate avenue for locating them. WP:NCOLLATH does not explicitly mention first-team Division I All-Americans, but even if it did, GNG is still the basis for the SNGs. To note, Scrivener appears to be the only player listed at 1972 College Football All-America Team who received a first-team selection by a selector and did not appear on any other selectors' teams. (As an aside, the article previously mentioned Scrivener was named second-team Tulsa All-Century, but the reference says he was third-team. I've corrected this in the article.) Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand NCOLLATH and the nature of the presumption it creates. A first-team All-American clearly qualifies under NCOLLATH -- see prong 1 and the linked template. Passing NSPORTS establishes a rebuttable presumption that a topic is notable. As with all rebuttable presumptions, the effect is to shift the burden of proof. See Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932) ("A rebuttable presumption clearly is a rule of evidence which has the effect of shifting the burden of proof."). Accordingly, a party challenging the notability of a topic that passes NSPORTS has the burden of proof to demonstrate by appropriate and diligent searches that the topic has not received significant coverage of the type required by the general notability standard. The scope of such searches will vary depending on the circumstances, including geography (e.g., an Oklahoma topic should include searches of Oklahoma sources) and time period (e.g, hard copy searches may need to be conducted for pre-Internet topics where the relevant sources are not digitally available). There are plenty of American football articles that either should be deleted, or are in a gray area, but AfD'ing Division I first-team All-Americans (the highest level of achievement in college football) strikes me as quite misguided. We have never deleted an article on a Division I first-team All-American and should not start doing so now. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I echo what Eagles247 has said regarding the All-American outcomes, but am troubled by the comments I've seen from the article creator, who, despite creating a great many football articles (of which I'm sure many are fine), has displayed here and elsewhere that they do not understand the relevant notability guidelines or AfD procedure. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to keep the discussion on the topic rather than questioning other editors' competency or comprehension. While I voted delete at Lloyd Yancey, my review of Tecmo's articles (including this one) reflects a pretty decent grasp of applicable notability standards. Cbl62 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While your point is taken, I feel like the general ignorance of NGRIDIRON as well as the removal of an AfD tag from an article (which I believe happened with this one) raise more questions to me than they answer, especially for an editor who has been active for a number of years. Only coming to AfD four times, to vote keep each time, is indicative to me that there is only a self-interest, which I suppose could be understandable. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an athlete from the sixties and early seventies, it is not going to be quite as easy as searching for athletes in the eighties and forward. And you are also talking about a cornerback, which is not one of the most glamorous positions in football during that time.Tecmo (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage of him in a newspapers.com search that wasn't prep sports related. Fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 300 hundred results in newspapers.com. What do you mean you couldn't find articles that werent related to his time in college or professional sports ?Tecmo (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tecmo -- Sporting Flyer's comment was with respect to "significant" coverage. See WP:SIGCOV for a fuller explanation. Cbl62 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like other delete proponents, I can find no SIGCOV: end of story. Debates over whether he qualifies under NCOLLATH are irrelevant; NCOLLATH, as with every other NSPORTS SNG, is under guidance that it does not immunize an article against the necessity of meeting the GNG. Since no keep proponent has lifted a finger to take the article out of its current state of poor sourcing, and since the GNG has no clauses exempting 1970s athletes or cornerbacks from its provisions, there you have it.
(And that being said, Tecmo has a trout slap coming for deleting an AfD template. Someone who's been here eight years should know better. Ravenswing 22:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any biographical prose written about this person in reliable sources. I can find his name appearing on a few lists, and that's about it. If we have no source material, we have no reason to have an article about them. --Jayron 32 17:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCOLLATH #1, per Cbl62 and Rlendog. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; lack of WP:SIGCOV overrides any trivial pass of any part of WP:NSPORT. We can keep his name in a list, if a suitable one exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: I have voted with you on cricket micro-stubs concerning players with minimal participation, but a Division I-A first-team All-American is quite different. There are approximately 50,000 individuals each year who participate in NCAA football at the different levels of play (Division I-A/FBS, Division I-AA/FCS, Division II, Division III). By receiving a Division I-A first-team All-America honor, a player has been selected by one of the officially-recognized selectors as one of the 22 best players out of 50,000 participants (i.e., the top .0004% of all players). This is a true pinnacle of achievement in NCAA football. In the 14 years that I've been monitoring NCAA football AfDs, we have NEVER deleted an article on a Division I-A/FBS first-team All-American. IMO doing so would be a horrible precedent. (There is difficulty pulling the SIGCOV for this particular pre-Internet player because the Tulsa area newspapers are not available in digitally-searchable format in any database that I've been able to locate.) Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that it's OK to have an article with no source text to reference because you can't find any source text to reference. Okay.... --Jayron 32 17:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that there are certain pinnacle-level achievements where notability is appropriately presumed, particularly for the pre-Internet era, and that the relevant off-line sources should be searched before we delete. Okay .... Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, it must be recognised that this is the pinnacle at a non-elite level, and a presumption is not a guarantee. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That argument would only hold water if that "pinnacle-level achievement" was itself a clear indicator that the source text existed. For example, if a person were elected the Head of State of a nation, one would presume that all people so elected would have had significant writing about their lives. You've made the assertion that being named to an All-American team is of a similar level, what I am doing is questioning that: Your contention is that every (or at least nearly all) All-Americans have sufficient source text we can use to write an article. I don't believe that to be true, and you've provided no evidence to the contrary. Indeed, your one example for this article you've admitted you can't find anything, though assert that it must exist somewhere that no one can read it. That's not good enough. --Jayron 32 17:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I didn't create this article, but I've spent a good chunk of the last 14 years working on All-American football player bios. From that experience, I can tell you that Scrivener is an oddity. I can't recall another first-team All-American where I've had difficulty tracking down SIGCOV. Typically, first-team picks by an official selector receive abundant SIGCOV. The Scrivener case puzzles me to be honest. Cbl62 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for sources, it appears he has a son, Drane W. Scrivener Jr., who played for Western Kentucky and appears to work as both a general contractor and firefighter in Louisville. Perhaps that will give some help digging something up. I think That's the younger Scrivener in the picture there. --Jayron 32 18:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am aware of the setup. Deletion would would simply be following existing consensus regarding the requirement for SIGCOV in the case of sportspeople. However, keeping would betting setting a president of disregarding such requirements on the basis of speculation of the existence of hidden sources. There is (of course) no bar to recreation should significant coverage ever be unearthed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really do hear you but respectfully disagree as to (a) whether Division I-A/FBS is an elite level (were this a Division I-AA or lower honor, I would agree with you 100%), and (b) the strength of the presumption of notability that should be afforded in the case of a tightly-formulated SNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, of course. The very second that someone produces the sources, the article can be undeleted. An assertion that sources exist, but no one can find them, is not good enough to keep an article around. --Jayron 32 17:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Jayron, your approach renders the "presumption" of notability to be meaningless. A presumption should have some force and effect. Under your view, a person presumed to be notable under a well-drafted SNG would be treated no differently at AfD than a person who is under no presumption of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an accurate statement - if we didn't have agate saying he was an All-American this would almost certainly be headed to a unanimous delete instead of us discussing whether the presumption has merit even though GNG is, at this point, failed. Instead we're in an unusual zone, because GNG is a requirement, it hasn't been met yet, and we've looked, even though you'd expect it to be met in these sorts of situations. SportingFlyer T·C 00:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nobody has checked the relevant Tulsa/Oklahoma media outlets because they are not available on-line from the early 1980s. That's where the presumption should kick in and protect the article. Cbl62 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'd expect an All-American (as a "major award") to have more than local coverage, though, which is one of the other presumptions in NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer T·C 00:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are separate and independent presumptions. Also, there is abundant and national coverage of the All-America selection. It's the deeper coverage that is more likely to be found in the Oklahoma outlets. Cbl62 (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's close, but I agree with Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for mainly lacking WP:SIGCOVand secondlyWP:NGRIDIRON. This is not very wells sourced where four of the citations are only lists of team transactions. According to NGRIDIRON someone who didn't play in the NFL could be notable if he "...attained notability arising from their college football days." Granted that two sources show him being recognized by his Alma Mater but his playing career there didn't seem to have received widespread sports page coverage. Sounds like a player with a lot of promise that just fell short of making an NFL team. Generally speaking, if one is having trouble finding WP:RSs to support a subject's notability than the person probably does not pass the WP:GNG bar. Blue Riband► 02:42, 6 March 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.