Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Fitzgerald (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 no consensus, which defaults to keep. There is no question that this article has been substantively improved during this AfD, and credit to all who have done so. However there remains a disconnect within and beyond this AfD about the volume needed to meet the significant coverage of the GNG, therefore there is no clear keep consensus. Star  Mississippi  17:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Jamie Fitzgerald (American football)

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

Draftify (or delete, in light of the convincing analysis of the situation by TheCatalyst) Articles plainly and blatantly fails WP:GNG at this time. The sources are A) 2 databases B) 2 trivial mentions. He does not meet any other actual inclusion criteria (NSPORTS is not an inclusion criteria in and of itself, as it clearly states that sports figures do not get exemptions from GNG, FAQ question no. 2). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator closed the AfD as "Withdrawn", but that edit was reverted by another editor per WP:WITHDRAWN, as some other delete !votes were still outstanding. The nominator has since gone on a Wikibreak, so it's up to the closer to determine the nominator's position, unless they comment further.—Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, per NGRIDIRON. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NSPORTS: conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Per the same, If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No. And on top of that, you can't write an article which meets the other guidelines and policies (WP:NOR; WP:NPOV; WP:NOT) solely on insufficient sources like this. You are clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per NSPORTS: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonsense wikilawyering. NSPORTS clearly states that the actual inclusion criteria is GNG. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. And clearly, "it is likely", not "it is guaranteed". You going for a very strict interpretation and ignoring the whole of the rest of Wikipedia policies is not helping. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , try and keep it WP:CIVIL. gave his !vote and is not clearly trying to make a point. I haven't done a WP:BEFORE search yet, so I'm witholding a !vote for now, but jabs like the ones you've made are unnecessary. Spf121188 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Beanie moved an article from draft space to main space, after it had already been moved back from main space to draft space, without addressing any of the reasons or the issues. That's disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the version before it was last moved into mainspace, there doesn't seem to be any obvious indication that there were issues raised before.—Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's rather reckless to move a page without having looked at its history, or, after having done so, not having bothered to further investigate why. What happened is that Beanie moved this without addressing the issues (as they surely understand them - this isn't quite rocket science: an article which is only based on databases and trivial mentions is just not acceptable, as Wikipedia is neither a database nor a collection of trivial mentions). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue with a reliable stats site establishing an SNG being met. For example, many politician stubs meet WP:NPOL by sourcing to election results stats that they were elected to office.—Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about "many politicians" or even the general case of articles being only sourced to databases. We're talking about this article. There is WP:NORUSH to create articles, and that includes taking the time to find proper sources if they exist, and not blindly assume an SNG establishes insta-notability-despite-GNG-not-being-met. It doesn't as it explicitly states itself. There is no exception from GNG for sportspeople (nor do I see how one could come to such a conclusion reading the guidelines as written), unlike for some other groups. Repeatedly presenting such database-stubs and ignoring any of the multiple issues with regards to the suitability of such articles is frankly disrespectful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Disrespectful is an awfully strong word to use here... WP:AGF. But, I do understand your point. Spf121188 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Reply BeanieFan has promoted good articles, has Autopatrolled rights, and is a prolific good standing editor. Assuming good faith is a fundamental aspect of WP, and Beanie always acts in good faith. In no way is he being Pointy. Spf121188 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever. It still doesn't absolve them from following policies about BLPs (which require better than trivial mentions or databases) or on what Wikipedia is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets WP:NGRIDIRON. What is POINTY here is PRODing and sending an article to AfD so shortly after its creation. There is no deadline here and nominating it so quickly does not allow for a deeper search for print sources, since this is a player who played before the advent of the internet. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Redirect to 1987 Minnesota Vikings season. Having only played in two games (and he doesn't even appear in stats for the games), this alternative to deletion is preferable. Could be something interesting stemming from his status as a replacement player during the player strike, but nothing beyond his PFR entry hurts the claim to notability. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep- makes a really good point. There is no deadline for AfD, and more searches can be conducted up since this player did play, and played before the internet. My !vote could change, but I'm erring on the side of Etzedek and BeanieFan. Spf121188 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete a review of Newspapers.com only came up with three hits, all of which were transactional in nature:  . Note that two of those 3 sources are covering the same transaction. There is a complete lack of significant coverage of the player, both online and in print sources. Thus this fails WP:GNG. Regarding 's comment, there is absolutely no deadline, but that applies to the creation and creator of the article. There is no deadline to create the article and take the time to find the relevant sources prior to moving to the Mainspace. But when it is moved to the Mainspace, the onus is on the creator to make sure it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not on other Wikipedia editors to give them time to flush it out.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 17:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * and, please take a look at the clippings above. I perused the first 100 results or so on Newspapers.com for the period from 1983-1988, including looking at specific dates in October 1987 when he played his only 2 games. Barely a mention and definitely no features stories. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 17:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , two things. 1. Thank you for presenting your findings in a helpful, respectful manner. 2. I kept my vote open for this exact reason. I still believe there's a bit of noteworthiness, but I'll strike my vote given your findings. Spf121188 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per Gonzo. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability requires verifiable evidence, for which there is none. If sources may exist, then the article gets to be created when/if they are found, not before that. Avilich (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Verifiable evidence has been provided with the recent expansion. Whether that is sufficient I don't know, but the original concern of mine doesn't apply anymore. Avilich (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft as an alternative to deletion, to give the article creator time to find more verifiable sources. Spf121188 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gonzo, or perhaps merge into 1987 Minnesota Vikings season. NSPORTS goes to presumption of notability for players who have played in a professional game. That presumption still has to be met. Absent significant coverage in reliable sources, which hasn't been brought forward as yet, it doesn't. I did some checking in newspapers.com myself and there's the sort of routine gameday coverage that you'd expect, but no in-depth profiles, and nothing much outside of Eastern Washington and Idaho. Playing a snap of pro football, by itself, does not mean you're notable. Mackensen (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why, as an encyclopedia, we would want to get rid of an article that meets our criteria of inclusion (NGRIDIRON). This person played several games in the National Football League—the highest level of the sport there ever was—yet we are discussing whether this should be deleted! I am astounded at this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because databases and trivial mentions are not encyclopedic, and NGRIDIRON is not a criterion of inclusion. The only thing that matters is that a topic has received significant attention from reliable sources. This is according to nothing other than NSPORTS itself (FAQ#5). Avilich (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Our criteria for inclusion is not and never has been "played a professional sport". Rather, it is significant coverage about the subject, which playing a professional sport may suggest exists. I am astounded that such a concept of automatic notability is even considered, as we are not a mere database of athletes. Reywas92Talk 18:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG is the absolute minimum for getting articles on sports people. It is because of disruptive editing by the likes of Beaniefan11, and his refusal to even recognize the full text of the sports SNGs, that many of us have come to the conclusion that it is time to do away with the sports SNGs, because they are being used to try to turn Wikipedia into a sport stats page instead of an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, Please try to keep this conversation civil... That comment about BeanieFan really wasn't called for. Remember that we're all supposed to assume good faith. The comment below by Gonzofan is a good example of how to express these opinions in a civil manner. Spf121188 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll add that, I understand your concern, but direct these kinds of comments to the users talk page, again in a civil manner. Spf121188 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * His losing patience is understandable. The mechanics of NSPORTS have been pointed out repeatedly in several occasions. Yet people are still throwing around "keep per NGIDIRON", or, even better, the classic "we're an encyclopedia, we can't delete things". Avilich (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Reply, I understand that 100% and I mentioned that below my response. However, that still doesn't excuse personal comments. BeanieFan can be pointed in the right direction, such as you pointing this page out to me. Again, I understand the frustration, but we're supposed to remain cool when editing gets hot. Spf121188 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He participated in that discussion! Avilich (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment, I think one of the big challenges that we face when assessing these types of articles is that we all know in today's world, with the onslaught of sports-focused reporting and the internet, these types of players would have significant coverage. I'm sure we could find a handful of players since 2005 who played in just a few games but have significant coverage on them. It just comes down to how different sports is reported on in our connected world. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 20:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps we should change WP:NAFOOT? I tried doing a Newspapers.com search, but the references I added were all I could find. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As several other editors have noted, this article doesn't meet GNG, but I don't think it meets the spirit of NGRIDIRON either. As the Times-News reference confirms, Fitzgerald only played in the NFL as a replacement player during the 1987 NFL strike. The replacement players weren't top-level players, since those players were striking, and most of them had no hope of making the NFL were it not for the strike. Some of them became notable through their play as a replacement player, and some were notable because of their college careers or their time in other professional leagues, but many of them were just mid-tier college players who were willing and able to play pro football on short notice. I don't know if it's worth changing NGRIDIRON to call out a single-season edge case, but the replacement players aren't all notable in their own right, and Fitzgerald doesn't meet the GNG on his own. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing to Neutral. I stand by my comments on NGRIDIRON, but I'm no longer sure how I feel about whether this article meets GNG or not. On the one hand, there are a lot more sources now, and the article is in a lot better shape in general. On the other hand, the sources are a little weak - maybe there's something from the Pocatello or Idaho Falls papers that just isn't online, but very few of the sources are substantial, and even the non-trivial ones are fairly short. I don't feel comfortable endorsing deletion anymore, but I'm also not all the way on the keep side yet, so I'm sitting out unless someone digs up more coverage. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Fitzgerald, now defensive coordinator at Lake City High School in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, was good enough to be invited back for training camps in 1988 and 1989, though he never made the roster.
 * Keep The question is are there sources out there beyond statistics of a person who meets NGRIDIRON. We have the article from the Times-News in the article. Trivial, perhaps, but from an independent and reliable source. I also found this article about the subject's high school coach in the Spokesman Review. The subject is the primary person interviewed in the article (and includes some biographical details about the subject). The subject is described as a leader of the Bengals defense. The subject is described as being invited back to camp in subsequent years. So, I think there are sufficient sources to merit an article. --Enos733 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The first one of these clearly contains only very trivial content about Fitzgerald. It might be SIGCOV of his high school coach, but notability is not inherited. Interview are not independent sources so are not usually accepted. "Described as leader of the Bengals (not the NFL Bengals, but some university [Idaho State University] team Bengals) defense" is A) a trivial mention as far as I can see (p. 23/28 in the PDF for those who want to spend less time checking that) and B) it's from a student newspapers... The final source includes some tidbits of information, but it seems like most of it comes from the subject's own mouth. The sum of "independent coverage in reliable sources" is thus essentially the following sentence from that last article:
 * Sure, that's better than statistics, but if that's the whole of what we can say on this subject, he doesn't really warrant a separate page. Sufficient coverage (along with all the other similar players in his situation) can be given in 1987 NFL strike and 1987 Minnesota Vikings season. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think Fitzgerald said he had a roommate who often reeked of alcohol establishes notability... Avilich (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The standard is not straight GNG, it is WP:NSPORT and specifically WP:NGRIDIRON. There is no doubt the subject played in the NFL. There is independent, reliably sourced information of the subject, beyond a database listing. This is why the SNG exists, to provide a presumption of notability in cases like this one (a presumption that can certainly be refuted, but rebuttable by showing reliably sourced material). We can piece more together, especially if we can find more from the subject's college and high school career (as seen in being nominated for conference player of the week, as of 2012 the subject being on several lists of top ten performances in Idaho State history [and this is without having online access to the Idaho State papers]). And, we must also understand why the SNG exists, it exists, in part because there are editors who want to know more about the players in professional athletics. These players are at the pinnacle of their sport, and are stars at the prep level. There are public details about transactions, salaries, and in many sports, more statistics than can be comprehended. Our community wants this comprehensive information. As editors we can do better, add more information, but there is no harm to project with keeping mini-stubs, like this one. --Enos733 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't read NSPORT, did you?


 * As for the sources you have provided, these are again trivial mentions (and no, being listed in ten different statistical categories without any further detail does not make these suddenly not be trivial mentions). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and no amount of special pleading (based on an opinion which is clearly at odds with that of the wider community) can exempt an article from having to follow that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Replacement players were hired as scabs during the NFL strike. While most "real" NFL players will almost always pass GNG, the replacement players are a special case -- though some day curiosity about the replacements may generate SIGCOV. I did find some additional coverage. E.g., here, here, here, and here. Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe an article on the replacement players would be a suitable redirect for guys like Fitzgerald. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding those! I'm surprised I didn't see any of that coverage in my search. He now (in my opinion) is a pass of both NGRIDIRON and GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Focusing the search by geography sometime helps. Cbl62 (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , just curious, do you plan to take a position on this AFD? I will note, of the 4 clippings you provided, three of them easily fall under the "Player was signed by team" genre (i.e. transactional), which usually doesn't go far enough to establish GNG. The other clipping (#2) would be more easily presented as a full article clipping (see here), which makes it easier to surmise that it is a feature article on high school football coach Don Anderson. The content that is presented is merely an interview of Fitzgerald, with everything he is saying being about coach Anderson. Again, I don't see that as enough to pass GNG, as interviewing past high school players of a coach who died would seem fairly standard and not be enough to establish the notability of the interviewees. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 20:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The "replacement" player status makes me question the overall notability. There is some marginal SIGCOV (coverage of signings may or may not be SIGCOV depending on depth -- mere announcements, "no", but maybe "yes" if there are biographical details provided as well) but not enough to convince me to fight for this article. Idaho papers are scarce on Newspapers.com, and there may be more there. I am a fence sitter for now. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG; I agree with RandomCanadian's assessment of the sources presented. BilledMammal (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Wading back in, the goal of any article is to develop a complete picture of the subject for our audience. For many athletes (passing NSPORT) there may not be that one feature length story (or that feature length story might only exist from a local or even an high school paper). What Cbl62 has found in those clips information about a) playing on a state championship team (where I found in another source that he caught a touchdown in the state championship game), b) coverage of his signing with ISU, b) indication that he played with the Vikings for parts of three years (which we know from other sources that the subject was invited to training camp) c) that he quit playing at Idaho State d) he was drafted by ew York in the World Football league and e) that he was second-team all Big Sky Conference in his junior year. To me, this is a comprehensive set of verifiable information painting a good picture of the subject, who played in the NFL. I recognize that if the subject did not play in the NFL with this coverage, this discussion would not occur. But that is the reason why a SNG exists - it recognizes that there is some real world interest in the subject and there "probably" is coverage (even if editors have to do some digging to find it). --Enos733 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would consider that investigation - that synthesis of passing mentions - to be closer to building a secondary source than a tertiary source like Wikipedia. BilledMammal (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Enos presents a fair case. It's just not enough to persuade me to keep. Catching a TD pass in the Idaho high school championship game doesn't add much for me. Nor does being drafted by the WFL. Nor does second-team Big Sky recognition. If he was not just drafted by the WFL but actually played a season in the WFL, that might tip me. Cbl62 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "synthesis of passing mentions" - yeah. That's what one would expect from someone making an original work. If nobody has bothered to do this before, it's an indication that this person is not "notable", i.e., that nobody has bothered to "make note of" them... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In fairness, some of the sources (here and here) are more than just passing references. Cbl62 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I've seen articles deleted with more convincing content than this; and significant coverage usually does not include routine, transactional "X was signed by Y" stuff. As I said earlier, WP:NOPAGE might be the wisest piece of advice here and it would be pertinent to find a relevant place where to cover this subject - even with these two short clips, there's not much more information than what is already in the article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

*Keep The two sources added after mine seem sufficient. I think it is clear that even though we have only found two good sources, more probably exist somewhere. If people still aren't happy, we should get rid of WP:NAFOOT. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to meet GNG per the sources presented above. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to the team article, if it preserved some biographical information as well. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 17:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Would this work? Rather than delete this and rather than add bios to the 1987 Minnesota Vikings season, which would probably make it much too long, why don't we start an article titled, e.g. 1987 Minnesota Vikings replacement players, where biographies of players like Fitzgerald could be added? (Note: I would prefer if created that it only be used for those who meet the following: (1) Have not played in any other NGRIDIRON-passing league, (2) only played as a replacement player, and (3) have no coverage that is found to be SIGCOV) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That could work, especially if there are multiple other cases like this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't done a WP:BEFORE, but it appears there are a few such as Frank Ori and John Scardina, and there are a number of currently redlinked players that would also likely be suitable for inclusion in the table. I think this could work. BilledMammal (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * keep we currently have a consensus to keep nfl players who have played in at least one game. While that is being discussed and is under consideration for change, that change has not happened yet and may not happen at all.  Until it does, we should stick with consensus.  If it changes, then we should... also stick with consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we don't; WP:NSPORT states "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline", even if it meets the SNG. BilledMammal (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NGRIDIRON does not say that at all. And a scan of the page WP:NSPORT does not find the word "eventually" as you quote.  To what do you reference?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NGRIDIRON is sub-guideline of WP:NSPORT. And you can find it at the top in Q2 of the FAQ. BilledMammal (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if you take NSPORTS very literally, it quite explicitly says "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Your argument is essentially "passes NGRIDIRON, therefore must be kept"... Obviously, that is not very convincing. Articles still need to meet GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Holy smoke, buried deep two levels into drop-downs in a freaking header tag that's visible to users on desktop only? I seriously doubt that meets Wikipedia guidelines for consensus and peer review--especially since it is hidden text.  Hiding text from a large number of users is just bush league song and dance.  I don't dance.  If it's really "consensus" stop hiding it.  I submit that hidden text like that does not meet the consensus standard.  I'm not budging.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What I am quoting isn't from the FAQ. But the FAQ is part of the consensus, and it is widely followed. Even if you ignore the FAQ, the rest of the guideline is consistent with it, so there's no reason why it would be invalid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote you gave ONLY appears in the FAQ dropdown box in the header (at least that I can find). It does NOT appear in the body of the document.  A simple CNTL+F and search for the string "eventually" of WP:NSPORT shows zero results and is easily confirmed.  Nope.  Not budging.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. is not from the FAQ. And even if it were, you can ignore the FAQ all you want, it still is part of the guideline, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (or rogue editors) cannot overrule a well-established guideline. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You posted a quote that doesn't exist. I'm done.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a small typo in the one they provided; the correct one is meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: They aren't. See the following source assessment table:

BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair enough. I'll strike for now. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you seen these two articles yet? They were not listed in the assessment table and appear significant enough to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I was not aware of those articles. Notability is now much more likely. I'll avoid !voting for now though. I'm pretty tired. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those weren't in the article, hence why I didn't see them. However, they are very short, telling us little, and appear to be WP:ROUTINE transactional coverage. I don't believe they meet WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to closer, I do not completely agree with the source assessment table presented here. I do think that the sources from BeanieFan would be a significant source according to the GNG and the interview in the Spokesman would also meet GNG. That all said, I continue to believe that when a subject meets a prong within an SNG, in this case playing in the NFL, our evaluation of sources should err towards inclusion rather than trying to deletion. In this case, information provided by the NFL is helpful to building an article and the other articles do create a comprehensive picture of the subject and the subject's football career. That is, an SNG gives criteria for whom the community thinks is notable, and the requirement that there is sufficient sources helps ensure compliance with WP:BLP and other content policies. Fundamentally, I do not see how deletion of this subject with multiple sources helps our project (see WP:NOTPAPER). --Enos733 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the sources provided "create a comprehensive picture of the subject". The only information we have about him is where and when he played/coached football. Literally absolutely nothing else. Per WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS, if the only thing we have is routine, almost statistical, reporting like that, then this is not encyclopedic material, as it is nothing but the equivalent of "simple listings without contextual information". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  16:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Source assessment tables" are a tool, but they are a tool based on the opinion of the editor that created the table. Please do not give undue weight to that opinion just because it's in a "table format" and looks like "fact" -- it's an opinion.  One to consider of course, but just for what it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much place for "it's just an opinion" for most of those sources - the two which were not in the article when the table was done are maybe debatable (although very much on borderline on that too), but the rest are rather clear-cut. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From the table: "This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor."  the table itself issues the caution.  Stating something as if it were a fact does not actually make it a fact.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the assessment presented (which IMHO is quite right), you should explain so clearly and not vaguely dismiss it as mere personal opinion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Other editors have already done so quite well, there is no reason for me to repeat arguments per WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON. The added references from reliable sources plus the SNG pass prove that the subject is notable in my estimation. GPL93 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which of the above sources are SIGCOV? Of those presented so far, none is more than routine and unremarkable sports coverage RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, can you just stop it with the WP:BADGERing and straight up nastiness with which you consistently attack other editors? In this AfD alone you've gone after, &  beyond usual WP:CIVIL discourse. Additionally, The subject passes an SNG and has coverage that moves it beyond the database referenced entry that we are trying to prevent. Would I prefer to see a little more coverage, yes, but I am also taking into account that Fitzgerald played 35 years ago and referencing may be harder to find. GPL93 (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that it doesn't matter if they meet WP:NGRIDIRON; per WP:NSPORT, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And those sources have been provided... BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment, I have just significantly expanded the article. See here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All of those sources indisputably fail WP:GNG; see the following source assessment table. If I missed a source that was added, please let me know and I will review it and add it to this table.


 * BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect in that they all fail GNG, for and  are SIGCOV (IMO). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I overlooked those; they were already marked as read from our earlier discussion. Added now. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I am impressed with what has become of the article. WP:SIGCOV is debateable, but the fact that more sources keep coming up tell me that this subject is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per the expansion work done since the AfD was started.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. At the time of nomination, the article was a one-line microstub simply reciting that Fitzgerald played football for Minnesota and Idaho State. On February 14, after my initial comments and after all of the "delete" votes were cast, User:BeanieFan11 expanded the article substantially. It is now a decent Start-class biography with 15 sources. Two of those sources (here and here) are three paragraphs in length, providing biographical details. While such articles are at the lower end of what might be considered SIGCOV, there is no precise length requirement in SIGCOV. BilledMammal cites WP:ROUTINE as a purported reason to ignore these sources, but (a) they are not mere passing references or mere transactional notices, and (b) WP:ROUTINE on its face applies to events and not to biographies. Given that Fitzgerald did make it to the NFL (albeit as a replacement player), and given the fact that we have never previously deleted an article on a modern NFL player (Vainowski played in the 1920s), I opt to resolve the weight of the SIGCOV in Fitzgerald's favor and end up as a "weak keep" on NGRIDRIRON, GNG, and WP:IAR grounds. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Asking you to give this as second look in light of BeanieFan's substantial expansion and addition of sources now totaling 15. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I wanted to respond to one specific part of your comment above. You state that two of the sources are three paragraphs in length, however looking at them closer, it is important to note that the first source you provided is actually 3 sentences long, just broken up into one sentence per paragraph and the second source is similar: it is four sentences broken up into 3 paragraphs. Both of those are still very clearly "Team X signed/drafted Player Y" transactional reports widely found in local newspapers and usually not enough to establish GNG. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 21:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep,, thank you for bringing this to my attention. And , nicely done expanding the article. I initially did strike my vote, but I really do think Cbl makes a solid argument above. Spf121188 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cbl62's argument, frustrating to see valid sources dismissed due to WP:ROUTINE, which applies to events not biographies. NemesisAT (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. I agree that the newly added coverage generally satisfies the SIGCOV requirements, if slimly. There may be a discussion that needs to be had about the behavior of the nominator (once back from their WikiBreak), both in here and based on their user page (which says The problem with Wikipedia? People who think that this is a sports fansite, and who think article creation is some form of competition with awards for creating more.. I have struck my above redirect vote. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I second Etzedek24's sentiment's regarding the nominator. I found it rather disturbing to see how they brushed off 's defense of 's good faith editing and then essentially continued to attack BeanieFan11's editing. GPL93 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I stand by my delete vote. Right now there are 15 sources in the article: 3 are straight databases (NFL, Pro Football Ref, Pro Football Archives), 2 are lists of statistics (ISU Bengals and ISSUU.com media guide), 1 is a student newspaper that only mentions Fitzgerald once in a full page article (Montana.edu), 2 are feature articles on other people with quotes from Fitzgerald, not about him (Twincities.com and Spokeman.com), 1 is a standard game report that only mentions Fitzgerald returned a punt for a TD (UPI.com) and the remaining 6 are clippings from Newspapers.com, each of which merely notes Fitzgerald signed with a team, was drafted by a team or is currently on a team. I just don't see it. I commend everyone here for pulling together an article from such scant sources, and I understand that this comes down more to a fundamental difference on how these bios should be treated. This article unfortunately is a microcosm of the larger debate. But looking past this larger discussion and just at this article, I just don't see it. If there is even one feature story that covered Fitzgerald, I will be the first to switch my vote. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 21:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear you and I end up a "weak keep", but you're giving short shrift to this and this which do not, as you claim, "merely note" that he was signed or drafted.
 * The Times-News piece includes the following biographical facts: (1) JF was selected by NY in the WLAF draft; (2) JF played two seasons for Idaho State in the mid-1980s; (3) JF was picked early in the fifth round with the 42nd overall pick; (4) JF was a "star" at Idaho State playing defensive back and returning kicks; and (5) JF received second-team honors on the all-Big Sky team as a junior.
 * The Spokesman-Review piece includes the following: (1) JF was a star at Gonzaga Prep; (2) JF signed a new 1988 NFL contract with the Minnesota Vikings; (3) JF was signed by the Vikings as an undrafted free agent during the prior year's players strike; (4) JF was released after the regulars came back to work; (5) JF hoped to play as a free safety, punt returner or on special teams; (6) JF played three seasons at Idaho State; and (7) JF quit in a dispute with Coach Jim Koetter before the 1986 season. Cbl62 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see where you are coming from. Again, I think this comes more from a fundamental disagreement of what significant coverage means in the realm of these types of bios. I slightly dismiss both of those sources due to the type of article they are. Looking broader at each newspaper page, each one of those articles are news briefs, or brief staff reports usually focused on local items of interest. For me, these fall below significant coverage. As you note, they are definitely great for capturing biographical details, but when used as the primary means of stating a topic is notable, they just don't do it for me. Again, if you showed me one feature story on this topic, I would throw in my support for keeping this article. But from what I see right now, it appears that the article is pieced together from brief mentions here and there. Nothing significant, with the coverage being minimal, at best. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 01:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand and respect your position. This one was a close call, and I also respect and value the rescue effort undertaken by BeanieFan. Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , the respect is mutual. Keep up the good work :) « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 02:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: The article has been significantly expanded since the start of the discussion and additional sources have been brought forward after several users cast their !votes. Additional discussion on whether those sources contribute towards WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG would be helpful in discerning a community consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, per the sourcing and improvements to the article since this AfD was opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per . In short, I don't think any of the sources I can find constitute "significant coverage" of the subject as its defined at WP:SIGCOV or how it seems to typically be understood around here. The most substantial coverage is the two newspaper clippings Cbl62 posts just above, one in a section of a column titled "Briefly" and the other in a section titled "Local Briefs". These seem like the absolute minimum amount of coverage a subject can receive beyond a directory listing. To me, that's just not enough to be "significant". Ajpolino (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep A difficult call, but there's enough to build an encyclopedic article out of the WP:THREE best sources Times-News, Spokesman Review, and Pioneer Press with the other sources filling out details. Meets WP:GNG, albeit barely. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the three you give, the first one is plainly a trivial mention and the last one is clearly about another person and the vast majority of the information about Fitzgerald is directly from Fitzgerald (who is not even the main focus). That leaves only those which are at the absolute very best marginal (given their routine nature). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply Sorry, I linked the wrong Times-News article (meant to link this one which has a little more biographical information). I don't know if this will move the needle at all for you, but if a non stub article can be written about a subject that meets an SNG (supported by reliable sources) then I'm for preserving it when possible. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Still Delete still not significantly covered to meet GNG. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you be okay to remove the bolded part? You already voted above. NemesisAT (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The bolding needs to be removed, lest it be viewed as a second delete vote by the same editor. Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you declining to remove the bold? Cbl62 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see the ping until today. The label Bagumba put under this is sufficient to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: Therapyisgood (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. —Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The 2nd sentence of the opening of WP:NSPORT very clearly states "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." That "or" is the key. Reading through comments it seems multiple editors are treating the "or" like it says "and". Per WP:NGRIDIRON "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the 1960s American Football League, the All-America Football Conference, the United States Football League." Per his Pro football reference page he played two games in the NFL in 1987. So we have a reliable source saying he played two games so per everything I've mentioned, it's clear the article should be kept. However, there's no evidence he played in 1988 or 1989 so that part does need to be fixed.-- Rockchalk 717 23:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent point. The main page of NSPORTS is clear. The fact that it seems to contradict itself between its lead and the Q2 of the FAQ is a conversation for the sports notability page. What's clear here is that reliable sources prove that the subject meets the SNG. Otherwise, if everything must meet GNG eventually, why even have SNGs? Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 03:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * More importantly, the subject passes WP:GNG based on the sources referenced above. Cbl62 (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per WP:HEY and the subject passing both the SNG of WP:NGRIDIRON and also WP:GNG after the great expansion work by which is very commendable. I can only hope that other editors can see his editing and model their own to work on expanding articles and adding, rather than trying to tear down systematically. --SuperJew (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As mentioned above quite a few times (and this is not the only place I've seen this recently), the nominator seems to be WP:BADGERing any users not voting or commenting in the way he'd like, as well as reverting expansion edits by BeanieFan11 using rollback/counter-vandalism tools. I'm not familiar enough with this process, but might this require some admin intervention? --SuperJew (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Answering to pings (as here) is not badgering; and if you can't be bothered to read WP:ROLLBACKUSE, specifically the part where it says The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary., then that's none of my problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per NSPORTS and GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:07, 22 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.