Select Page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to American football. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|American football|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to American football. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


American football

Braxton Cole

Braxton Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American professional wrestler who signed with WWE Evolve last month and, as far as I can tell, has only taken part in a single wrestling match so far. For what it's worth, he definitely doesn't meet the requirements of WP:PWBIO. Of course, he might be notable in the future, but he's not there yet. His college football career is also unremarkable. Pichpich (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Data Warehouse

College Football Data Warehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Citations show no significant coverage of this defunct website. Reliable sources sometimes use the site's data: "According to the College Football Data Warehouse...". But I cannot find any sources that offer WP:SIGCOV of the website itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CFDW is a major information repository/resource. It has not only been cited regularly as a reliable source by major media outlets, scholarly journals, and books; it is also cited as a source in hundreds (thousands?) of Wikipedia articles and is recognized here as a reliable source. Deleting the article, which provides background information and context on the database, simply does not improve Wikipedia. I don't recall ever relying on WP:IAR in 18 years working on Wikipedia, but this is a case where it definitely applies: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Cbl62 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the subject has been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals, such as the Journal of Sports Economics, the Utah Law Review, the Tulsa Law Review, the Oklahoma Law Review, and Sports Law, is proof of notability. The points made by Cbl62, all of which are valid, also favor keeping the article. In addition, this article is a valuable source of information, which if lost would be detrimental to Wikipedia. Jeff in CA (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Projectify We have several keep votes already here, but PK-WIKI's central point remains unchallenged: there has been no substantial coverage of the College Football Data Warehouse itself to establish it as a notable subject. Its use as a source in books, newspapers, and journals and establishes it a reliable source (at least in the past), but not clearly as a notable subject. Compare, for example, with Baseball Reference, which was the subject of a 2015 article in Rolling Stone (here). We having nothing of that sort for CFDW. I also have my doubts that CFWD remains a quality tertiary source now that it is defunct and has not been updated in several years, and therefore does not reflect any of the error-checking and de-bugging against primary and secondary sources that we editors have performed here in editing Wikipedia in recent years. In the early to mid 2010s, I sent David DeLassus over 100 emails regarding errors I found on his website, and he made corrections accordingly. But that obviously stopped once the site went effectively defunct nearly a decade ago. To that point, I have been removing references to CFDW wherever they are redundant or can be replaced other suitable sources. I plan to eventually remove all the references to CFDW, if possible. But given CFDW's history as a reliable source and frequent citation here on Wikipedia, I think this article should be preserved in some form. A WikiProject College football project page seems like the best fit. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with moving it to the internal Wikipedia:WikiProject College football space. That page would be far more useful than the current article, as we could discuss the history/authorship/reliability/sourcing issues you mention that are inappropriate for mainspace. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the suggesstion from Jweiss11. Let'srun (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sewanee Tigers starting quarterbacks

List of Sewanee Tigers starting quarterbacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This grouping does not have the necessary coverage to meet WP:LISTN due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources. PROD was removed by article creator with the reasoning that other schools have similar pages but that is effectively WP:OSE. Let'srun (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Ritter

Craig Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Craig Ritter is a lineman never played a down of NFL football, and he barely played much of any other professional football. He played in five games in the 1995 CFL season for the Memphis Mad Dogs, per another source, and was briefly a starter on their O-line, and he played arena football. But there's no significant coverage of him at all—and I scoured the Orange County, Phoenix, Memphis, and other papers for it. That's a WP:GNG failure. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there now sources that can be considered SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need some editors casting a "vote" for what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a valiant attempt to save this by WikiOriginal-9, but the subject is just not notable. For WP:GNG and WP:BASIC we need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. All the added sources are primary, passing and/or not independent. I thought maybe the St Louis Dispatch [2] article would buck the trend, going by its title, but sadly the article was actually about Ricky Sanders, and Ritter only gets a passing mention, a listed name in column 3, in the last paragraph of the column. Reading the article, I cannot see anything that tells me why this person is notable for an encyclopaedic article, and indeed, he is not. Sorry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I've been thinking about this for awhile, and here's why I came to the "weak keep" conclusion: first, its worth noting that Ritter did play a few seasons professionally, including in the CFL and AFL (former NGRIDIRON leagues), and I don't think any CFL player has ever been deleted. Of course, that alone isn't enough for notability. However, in addition to GNG there's also one other possible route to notability: WP:NBASIC, which states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. WikiOriginal-9 was able to turn this into a 500-word high-quality article using various bits of coverage, etc. of him. Given his accomplishments, I think it is reasonable to conclude that this expansion passes NBASIC and that deleting this wouldn't be an improvement to the encyclopedia, and hence end up "weak keep". BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You only quoted half the sentence. The trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.[1] That is to say, the proviso that multiple sources may be combined only applies when they contain non trivial and secondary sourced information that is independent from a reliable source, but where the non trivial coverage is not considered significant. What sources do you think meet that definition, and why? And yes, you are correct that we cannot use outcomes arguments at AfD. Those are circular arguments and their use has been rejected by the community. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's something that'd be "not trivial" but "not significant"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps something biographical but brief in a secondary source. An obituary, for instance, where it is not written by the family but by a reliable secondary source. A BBC obituary that had, say 35 words of biography would not reach SIGCOV, but its very existence implies notability, and could be combined with other such secondary sourced information from which the article could be written. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we do have some brief sources of more than that length; e.g., from a quick look, this and this are each 50 words. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are both primary news reporting. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I don't know how football players are supposed to be notable then if everything is primary except "historical & analytical reports"... That does seem to be an essay, though, instead of being the actual policy? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an explanatory essay of Wikipedia policy, which it links to. Footballers, like everyone else, become notable when someone starts writing about them as a subject. Taken the other way, if notability were shown by ever piece of primary match reporting, then all footballers would be notable. But, in fact, the standard is the same as it is for ambassadors, reporters, doctors or whatever. The better secondary sources will be where someone has gathered together primary sources and created a synthesis of those sources. Their synthesis is what makes the source secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Comment. My recollection is that articles on CFL players have been deleted, but I can't find a way to search the AfD archives. I've also researched a lot of CFL players as part of our de-stufify efforts and have been unable to find SIGCOV on MANY of them (even though Newspapers.com has pretty decent coverage of Canadian newspapers). The old presumption of notability for CFL players was probably never warranted. (It certainly wasn't warranted as to Arena Football League players like Ritter.)
As for Ritter, I am reluctant to vote delete given the effort that's been put into improving this by Wiki-Original9. That said, I'm not seeing any particularly notable on-field accomplishments: no all-conference honors in college; not selected in NFL draft; released preseason by both Raiders and Broncos; five games as a backup in the CFL; and five games as a backup in the Arena Football League. Moreover, the improvement appears to rely largely on trivial references such as "Transactions" reports, lacking any narrative discussion of Ritter. Are there any sources with even borderline substance of even a couple sentences? Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due to edit conflict, I didn't see the two items presented by Beanie before writing my comment above. This one simply reports that Ritter, as a JC student, was ASU's fourth JC commit; that doesn't do much. The other one (here) isn't much either, but at least it's an unusual weight-lifting accomplishment. In the end, put me down as a skeptic on Ritter's notability. I'll leave it at that. Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pete Von Harten, who played in 12 games for the BC Lions in 1955, is the only CFL player who has been deleted. Not that I necessarily agree with it though. 1950s CFL was closer to the NFL than 90s CFL. For example, in 1961, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats beat the Buffalo Bills 38–21.
In regards to Ritter. just wanted to make a few minor corrections to your comment:
  • "released preseason by both Raiders and Broncos" He was with the Oilers too.
  • "five games as a backup in the CFL" he was actually a starter too [3][4].
  • "five games as a backup in the Arena Football League" he spent time as a starter there as well [5]
~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was going based off Pro Football Archives (here) which indicates that his Arena/CFL games were as a backup. I'm curious, how were you able to search the AfD archives for CFL players deleted? Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just know it by memory. I've looked at everything in the archives before. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good memory, WO9! I was 44 when I started editing here, and age has not been kind to my memory now that I'm in my 60s. Cbl62 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Cbl! If it's any consolation, I didn't remember his name exactly. I thought it was "Pieter Van" not Pete Von, lol. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the games started column on Pro Football Archives is empty for him. It doesn't actually say 0. You'll notice that he doesn't have any games played listed for his WLAF career either but he did in fact play in the WLAF as well. Thanks Cbl. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The amount of prose that can be written about a topic is not and should not be a proxy for notability because, as we can see here, none of the citations for that prose amount to anything more than routine announcements and stats. SPORTSCRIT 5 is explicit in its requirement for citation of a SIGCOV source for this person, and I see nothing to suggest IAR is warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just not seeing the SIGCOV here. Jbt89 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per BeanieFan11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per BeanieFan11. Barr Theo (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not have the requisite coverage to meet either the WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC, which requires non-trivial sources. Of the sources in the article, #1 is a database, #2 is primary to the high school the subject attended, #3 is a brief two sentence mention, #4 is just a listing, #5 is a one sentence mention, not WP:SIGCOV, #6 is yet another one sentence mention, #7 is once again a one sentence mention, #8 is another mention, #9 is primary to his employer, #10 is a one sentence transactional announcement, #11 is another mention, #12 is another one sentence mention, #13-14 are transactional listings, #15 is another one sentence mention, #16-20 are more transactional listings, while #21-22 are just more one sentence mentions. I appreciate the work done by WikiOriginal-9 to try and find sources but this subject is simply not notable. Let'srun (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Let'srun. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like many wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. In addition, in cases like the Internet Movie Database, inclusion is routine for people in the associated domain and can therefore especially not be taken as evidence of notability.


Deletion review

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

  • None

Files proposed for deletion

  • None

Templates for deletion

  • None

Categories

  • None