Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Filipczak


 * 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 keep. There was a rough consensus in favour of the subject meeting WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Adam Filipczak

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Passes WP:NBASKETBALL by having played two games professionally, but the presumption of notability is incorrect in this case as they fail WP:GNG, having no significant coverage in the article or through a search, which only turned up a mention in a "Compendium of Professional Basketball". BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. A quick search does turn up some SIGCOV. E.g., here. Other coverage shows that he later changed his name to Adam Phillips, complicating searches. Cbl62 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, on-line searches are made more difficult by the fact that The Detroit News' and Detroit Times do not yet have archives that are readily searchable. Cbl62 (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems that the guideline WP:FAILN was not followed before nomination, such as working with subject-matter experts or merely tagging the article with notability.—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the user is trying to prove a point, not necessarily collaborate. Rikster2 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no requirement to give a notice period to, or involve, interested parties before nomination. You should note that the advice in FAILN you refer to is preceded by "...look for sources yourself, or:" (emphasis mine). Since the nom confirms that searches have been done, FAILN has in fact been followed. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was a "requirement". If non-experts want to say they did quality research on their own, I suppose there is no explicit rule against that. Well, WP:BEANS.—Bagumba (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And I didn't say you did; I merely said there wasn't. You did however state that "WP:FAILN was not followed", which is untrue. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – Claim of failure to meet WP:GNG is incorrect. A quick search on Newspapers.com returns plenty of coverage in various newspapers. --Jkaharper (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some of that coverage? Cbl62 has provided one example above, but we require multiple examples of significant coverage, not just a single example, and my own subsequent search on Newspapers turned up many passing mentions, but no additional significant coverage, though I may have missed something. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So what? Things were a lot different in the 1930s. Individual athletes weren't singled out and idolised as celebrities as they are today. Yes, most of the papers on there only dedicate a few sentences to him (or in the examples here and here entire sections) but what difference does that make? The article can easily be expanded to a few paragraphs using these newspaper cuttings, which would be a satisfactory length for this subject in my opinion. We shouldn't be bias against time. Every single professional basketball player at his level today would merit a Wiki article. Many of the newspapers and books from the 1930s covering this subject won't be readily available online. That doesn't mean that we can't expand the article over time. Deleting it is counterproductive. The individual is clearly notable as a professional athlete. --Jkaharper (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With individual athletes weren't singled out and idolised as celebrities as they are today you seem to be saying that athletes weren't regularly notable in the 1930's, which suggests we should not have articles on all of them. Further, while you have found one example of WP:SIGCOV (your first link consists of less than a paragraph on Filipczak), GNG - which NSPORTS states needs to be met - is not met. BilledMammal (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone has a Newsbank account, I believe they could also search The Detroit News archives here. Cbl62 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. That only goes back to 1999. Cbl62 (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete So people admit that we do not have in-depth coverage that meets the level of GNG. Wikipedia is built on reliable secondary sources, if those sources are not giving a person in-depth coverage than we are best not having an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, "people" have not admitted that - looks like the research is ongoing given that the AfD nomination was just put in today. One guy made a statement that you are choosing to interpret as "people." Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do have one example of SIGCOV from the Detroit Free Press. The older issues of The Detroit News and Detroit Times are available on microfilm at the Detroit Public Library, but I no longer live in Michigan, so it's difficult to retrieve those. Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Microfilm!?!?!? Why hasn't it been scanned yet? Why isn't it free on the Internet?—Bagumba (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is SO MUCH stuff not on-line. I find it weird that I can't find a boxscore from the 1980s except when using a paywalled Newspapers.com account. Rikster2 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, per NBASKET as well as the coverage found by Jkaharper and Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Other than the Detroit Free Press feature mentioned above, I only found trivial mentions of him, and GNG requires multiple significant sources. On him passing NBASKETBALL, WP:NSPORT, which NBASKETBALL is a sub-section of, makes it very clear that a topic that meets a SNG but doesn't have enough coverage is non-notable as can be seen in the recent Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski and was upheld in its deletion review. If more significant sources are found, I'll gladly change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – passes WP:NBASKETBALL and shows just enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the Detroit Eagles were in the top pro basketball league of the time and only played for a couple years in the NBL, so cherry-picking one player from their very-limited all-time roster is ridiculous. With that latter point, I'm invoking WP:IAR so that the Eagles' all-time NBL player roster is comprehensive. There's also a strong WP:POINTY vibe from some of the voters in this discussion based on experiences with them in previous basketball AfDs. SportsGuy789 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you post three of what you consider to be the best significant sources that lead him to pass GNG? Regarding the Eagles, while they are notable as a team, notability is is not inherited, meaning that playing for a notable team does not automatically make a person notable. I'm not sure what strong WP:POINTY vibe you are seeing, could you elaborate on that further? Alvaldi (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep definitely meets NBASKETBALL as well as GNG per above sources cited. Agree with SportsGuy, I think we can invoke IAR to have articles on the Eagles' all-time NBL player roster, but there are enough newspaper sources to get over the hump. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 01:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We have one source with significant coverage; that isn't enough to meet GNG. As for NBASKETBALL, it provides a presumption of notability, and per NSPORTS, GNG is still required to be met. Finally, if IAR applies here, then we no longer operate on consensus, we operate on voting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * NBASKETBALL's presumption of notability is a guideline, and there is no time limit on how long it takes to find additional sources. After all, the nomination claims that the only source found was "a mention in a 'Compendium of Professional Basketball' when someone quickly found at least one substantial source.  And IAR is policy.  Invoking IAR is hardly contrary to operating on consensus. Rlendog (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A guideline that NSPORTS states doesn't replace GNG. And this article has had over two years to find sources; if sources haven't been found in that time, and if we have only managed to find one in our in depth search here, then they clearly were not notable. BilledMammal (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * NSPORTS does not replace GNG. But is sets up a presumption that a subject that meets NSPORTS meets GNG.  And it is very difficult to prove otherwise and therefore refute that presumption for older topics such as this one where most sources would be offline.  I am not sure what "in depth" search you are referring to.  In your nomination you claimed that the only source was "a mention in a 'Compendium of Professional Basketball'" and yet someone else quickly found a solid on line source, plus some minor on line sources have been found, so your search was clearly not "in depth."  No one has claimed to do an in depth offline search that turned nothing up.  I have over the years turned up sources for articles that AfD nominators have claimed had no sources, sometimes years after the AfD, so the statement that sources haven't been found in 2 years (when no one was particularly looking) and that only finding one substantial on line source during the limited period of an AfD means that the subject is clearly not notable shows tremendous ignorance and/or arrogance, especially after incorrectly claiming that no no substantial existed in your original nomination. Rlendog (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - I haven't had time to research fully but a cursory Google search and quick perusal of Newspapers.com doesn't show much additional. I will do a deeper Newspapers.com review, as well as my personal library of several hundred print resources to see what I can find and let you know what I find and !vote then. He is hamstrung a bit by not having played college basketball, which is where a lot of these guys get substantial coverage prior to their pro careers. Rikster2 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Still looking for the time to do the physical search, but if anyone has an Ancestry.com account there are some links to newspaper articles here that I can't access that somebody should probably review. Rikster2 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm still on the fence given he barely meets WP:NBASKET by playing in 2 games. I am finding some hits via NewspaperARCHIVE, but only a few. There is this from an article in the The Sheboygan Press on the team makeup for the newly-founded Detroit Eagles. Part of the issue is because Filipczak went straight from high school to semi-pro and factory teams so he lacks the college coverage that most NBASKET passes typically have. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets NBASKETBALL, which produced a consensus that players such as him are notable. And at least one significant source has been found, not to mention a number of minor sources. Given that most sources from 80+ years ago are not available on line that validates the likelihood that there was at least one other significant source that is no longer readily accessible. Rlendog (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Detroit News coverage is a proof of notability, isn't? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, passing WP:GNG requires multiple significant sources from more than one reliable publication over a significant period of time, not just a single source. Alvaldi (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Where does it say, over a significant period of time? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:1E. BilledMammal (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't see it say over a significant period of time. But besides that, Filipczak played in multiple professional games (as well as several semi-pro teams), so 1E would not apply to him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It would if all the coverage was about him in a single game. But this isn't relevant; we only have one piece of significant coverage, when we require multiple to meet WP:GNG and keep. BilledMammal (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In WP:SUSTAINED. The direct quote is Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. Now, we could discuss about who long a sufficiently significant period of time should be but in this case the subject only has one significant source so that would be mute. Alvaldi (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think there is enough coverage to meet our general notability threshold. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As you know, GNG requires multiple significant sources. So out of curiosity, outside of this article, could you post a source that could be considered as a significant coverage? Alvaldi (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This (cited via newspapers.com in the article) also contains significant coverage. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.