Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Jennings (American football)


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Jennings (American football)

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

The subject had a minor career in college football. Of the few in-depth sources, they are all press releases and interviews which lack sufficient independence from the subject to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC. 4meter4 (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football,  and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. His on-field career ended not being spectacular, but he did appear in 35 games at QB for LSU and Louisiana, tallying 4,000 passing yards. See here. Not surprising, as a Division I QB, he got tons of SIGCOV. Newspapers.com has approximately 4,400 hits ranging from feature stories to passing mentions in game coverage. Examples of SIGCOV include: this, this, this (part 1/part 2), this, this (part 1/part 2), this (part 1/part 2). Cbl62 (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also this, this, this, this, and this (part 1/part 2). Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these pieces are independent. They all include interviews and quotes with either the subject or his coach. We need sources with in-depth intellectually independent analysis which are not primarily based on interviews. You still have't demonstrated significant coverage that passes WP:SPORTSBASIC. Please produce multiple interview free sources with independent intellectually original material about the subject as required by policy. 4meter4 (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your argument is wholly baseless. There is no need to produce "interview free sources", as you suggest. The fact that an in-depth profile off a person includes occasional quotes does not undercut its independence. Cbl62 (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Sources containing quotes of the subject or his coach or other closely connected people to the subject lack independence from the subject. This is how WP:SIGCOV is applied to biographies encyclopedia wide at WP:AFD. Sports figures are no exception per the language at WP:SPORTSBASIC. I see no reason why college football players should get special treatment. Interviews can't be used towards GNG. Period.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Show me the policy/guideline that says that an in-depth journalistic profile of a person lacks independence if it includes occasional brief quotes. What's that? You can't find such a policy/guideline?  That's because it doesn't exist. Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC are both clear on this point; despite your attempt to wiki-lawyer around it. If the article is clearly involving an interview, it lacks independence. Period. If the subject is truly notable you should be able to find the bare minimum of two sources that are interview free and have some intellectually independent coverage. If you can't, that's probably a strong indicator the subject is not notable.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC are both clear on this point." Actually, no. Neither of those guidelines says anything about interviews. And, of course, we're not even dealing with pure interviews here. We're talking about feature stories with occasional quotes. Cbl62 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. While this policy doesn't specifically name interviews, it should. WP:MULTSOURCES is a policy application of WP:SIGCOV (although for organizations) which does list interviews specifically; which I think demonstrates that the spirit of the rule in the wider policy is we exclude interview material. This is a pretty commonly accepted interpretation of WP:SIGCOV policy. Further if you look at the footnotes on No original research and relevant linked conversation the Reliable sources/Noticeboard we consider interviews in newspaper articles WP:PRIMARY sources. If the goal of WP:SIGCOVis to ensure WP:SECONDARY coverage exists, I don't see how you can argue interviews fall under that category. Once an article starts engaging with quoted text and interview material it becomes a WP:PRIMARY source. And that is according to consensus at the RS board. 4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. The argument that in-depth, third-party newspaper sources are somehow not independent of the subject is wholly baseless, and is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain how articles containing quoted text and interviews are independent? This is not how we interpret newspaper sources with quoted text.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So under your interpretation, this source (part 1/part 2) is disqualified because roughly 10% of the total text consists off a quote from the subject's coach. That is simply not a correct interpretation of policies and guidelines. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would consider it a WP:PRIMARY source. Once you start getting into partial interview articles, it's not clear if the prose section has also been influenced in some way by the subject of the interview in the non-quoted parts of the article. This would seem to be in keeping with RS noticeboard discussion on interviews in newspaper articles. Again, I think finding 2 sources without interviews should be possible if the subject is notable. I would concentrate your efforts there, given you seem to have access to more materials than I do. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep – clearly passes GNG – quotes DO NOT disqualify in-depth sources from counting towards notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable subject. Nominator has a bizarre idea that interviews conducted by independent journalists are not reliable sources that can establish notability. This is a absurd notion that should be expunged. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What's bizarre (well actually not; as I expect it from editors active in this content area) is that everyone here seems to be ignoring the RS Noticeboard decisions on what constitutes WP:PRIMARY sources. This just re-affirms my experience that editors in the sports area consistently ignore policies widely applied and upheld elsewhere; something that has led to numerous RFCs in previous years4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't read every discussion on every noticeboard here. Can you point me the discussion where it was that established that interviews (and feature articles that include quotes from interviews) published in independent newspapers aren't reliable sources that can used to establish notability? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see the linked policy in the footnotes section D of WP:No original research; I can't find the original discussion but interviews are listed as primary sources in that footnote and it links to the Noticeboard take on news sources.4meter4 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the linked policy footnote. I'm not seeing anything there that would suggest that a feature/profile piece published by an independent new sources that contains quotes from interviews with the subjects of the article would qualify as a primary source and constitute "original research" for our purposes here on Wikipedia. Even if an independent news source published a transcript of an interview it conducted with a subject perhaps just with a short intro, I don't think that qualifies either. If a company or university conducted an an internal interview of some member of its organization and put that document in their archives, okay, that's a primary source. But that's not what we're dealing with in this nominated article. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason why interviews, even in something like The New York Times, are considered primary sources is because they are not fact checked in the way that non-interview publications get fact checked. Journalist routinely publish interview material without independently fact checking the truth of that material. Reporting on what people say/claim is very different than asserting/verifying what is said is true. As a result, the type of independent editorial oversight required to be considered a WP:SECONDARY source just isn't there and the source is a WP:PRIMARY source. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Note. This AfD was opened 13 hours after User:Joeykai opened a proposal to move an article created by the nominator on harpsichordist Anthony Jennings on grounds that the harpsichordist was not the primary target. I try to assume good faith, but the coincidence certainly raises questions about whether this AfD has an ulterior motive. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. That discussion did make me aware of the article, which in turn did make me look at the sources. But I think the fact that I took the time to put together a lengthy source analysis, and the fact that I am an AFD patroller who actively participates in AFDs (I've commented on probably a few thousand AFDs perhaps over 5,000 at this point in my editing history) on a regular basis as a volunteer (often rescuing articles) would indicate that I am acting in good faith. I am certainly not making any arguments I wouldn't normally make at an AFD. Further, I was upfront about my thoughts about this article and stated my opinions about its notability. The notability tag I placed was reverted so I took it here and did the work of the source analysis. In short I followed our procedures in good faith. @ I'll further point out that I consider your bad faith notice a form of WP:CANVASING to bias the outcome of the move discussion and this AFD. You could have neutrally placed a notice and let people draw their own conclusions, but now its hard to unring that bell. 4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4meter4, I think Cbl62's accusation of a "bad faith" nomination is warranted, but I see that you've put a canvassing warning on Cbl's use talk page. Where did he place notices about this AfD? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * He didn't. This notice is canvassing for the move discussion at Talk:Anthony Jennings. It also negatively impacts this AFD. It would be nice if people WP:AGF rather than placing non-neutral notices that are attempting to impact community discussion and the process of building consensus. Considering the number of editors already disagreeing with me, was it really necessary to try and impugn my character? We can disagree over whether or not interviews count towards GNG without making it un-necessarily personal. 4meter4 (talk)
 * This "note" at 17:54? That's a local comment referencing a related issue, not a notice. You should retract this spurious accusation of canvassing. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I consider it a non-neutral notification of the move discussion. How else am I supposed to look at it? It's going to drive editors with a certain point of view there with an already negative bias towards me on a personal level, and it's going to make it impossible for me to feel like the opinion I put forward is going to receive any sort of neutral evaluation or fair consideration. In short it has completely tainted the neutrality of move discussion. It did exactly what canvassing intends to do.4meter4 (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @ The fact that you yourself have now commented at that move discussion proves my point. Your vote in the move discussion was clearly the result of this canvassing notification.4meter4 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4meter4, well, you probably could have made more friends here if you didn't take a swipe at "editors in the sports area" above. That aside, this AFD and the related move discussion are slam dunks. They are tracking the close the way they should, any hard feelings between editors aside. Anthony Jennings, the New Zealand musician, is not so famous that he constitutes a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get side tracked on the New Zealand musician here. That should stay in the move discussion where it belongs as its not pertinent to this AFD. And you are correct that I probably made few friends here. To be fair, everybody was/is attacking me for daring to have an opinion different than there. I still think this particular person is not notable based on the evidence. I would feel convinced he is notable if we could just find a couple of sources that don't rely on interview material. That's just my opinion on SIGCOV as it applies to all articles, not just sports people.4meter4 (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, I mean to write above "I don't think Cbl62's accusation of a 'bad faith' nomination is warranted, but..." Jweiss11 (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it's worth considering that your accusation of canvassing is likely to bring as much or more attention to the move discussion as Cbl's comment. I had already commented here, but then I saw your warning on his talk page, which is on my watchlist, as he and I are longtime collaborators on college football content. Is this a reverse Streisand effect? :) Jweiss11 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I did not and do not accuse User:4meter4 of bad faith. I was simply noting that the coincidence in timing between their move vote and AfD nomination raised questions. I have read 4meter4's response (above) and take them at their word. 4meter4 is an experienced editor and appears to have made the nomination in good faith. At the same time, I note that 4meter4's aspersions about sport editors ("This just re-affirms my experience that editors in the sports area consistently ignore policies widely applied and upheld elsewhere") did not exactly assume good faith. I suggest we all stop bickering, assume good faith, and let others weigh in on the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Yes I admit, I could have held that opinion to myself for the sake of cordial conversation. I was feeling a bit ganged up on and let it get to me.4meter4 (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage found by Cbl62. Sources do no get disqualified due to having interview parts if there is otherwise information on the subject in them. While interview parts of these sources are WP:PRIMARY, there is enough written in them by the author about the subject for them to count towards passing GNG in my opinion. Alvaldi (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep regardless of the OP's disdain for those of us who are active in this content area, I agree that the article passes GNG due to the significant coverage shown above. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 19:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The idea that newspaper articles which contain interview material are necessarily non-independent is both ridiculous and completely unsupported by any WP policy I have read, including those linked above in this discussion. Jennings meets NBASIC based on the references in the article now, and the additional sources provided by Cbl62 just clinch it. Hatman31 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. It’s clear I am of a lone opinion here. As such, I am withdrawing the nomination.4meter4 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 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.