Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Williams (guard)


 * 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. A weak WP:SNOW because several editors have qualified their keep !votes as "weak", and there are concerns about procedural issues with this nom that are being discussed at ANI. Still, it's not going to result in anything other than a keep, so might as well close this now and reduce the number of open noms in this topic area. (non-admin closure) Levivich (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Joe Williams (guard)

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

a WP:BEFORE yields no results. Non-notable. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football,  and New York.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: 30 games played in the NFL, with 22 of them as a starter, is ABSOLUTELOY notable. They were also a second-team All-Pro in 1926. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Are you kidding me? Williams was an important player on the Bulldogs' undefeated 1923 football team, one of the greatest teams in NFL history, was named Second-Team All-Pro (in case you don't know what that means, he was the second-best NFL player at his position!), and played in a total of 30 games! IAR. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm on an extended semi-wikibreak, but I had to participate here. At the very least, ignoring all rules makes sense here, and I don't have to say anything that BeanieFan11 and Hey man im josh didn't already. A former All-Pro selection in the National Football League is more than enough to have a standalone article. It also seems important to remember that sources from the 1920's were significantly less prominent than now (if I'm wrong about this, somebody please correct me.) I believe this was sent to AfD in good faith, but this one doesn't make alot of sense to me. SPF121188  (talk this way) (my edits) 20:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, suggest moving to Joe Williams (American football player) or something similar, since much of the world has absolutely no idea that a guard is anything to do with a US sport, and may wonder whether he's a security guard, a railway guard, or a Grenadier guard, or whatever guards might exist local to them. Elemimele (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe to Joe Williams (American football guard)? (since there's other Joe Williamses who played football and have articles) BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I originally closed this as keep, but the nom took it to deletion review without discussing anything with me first and managed to convince a few people that the close was premature. It is beyond laughable to me that anyone who understands the content area could honestly believe that this article warrants deletion, but I have vacated my close and reopened to allow further discussion. Hopefully common sense will prevail soon, and people will remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to dismantle one. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Redirect or Delete  As it stands the subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There are no sources of significant coverage in the article, none has been presented here and I was unable to find any during a search, including on Newspapers.com. The Second-Team All-Pro selection mentioned was by a single correspondent for Collyer's Eye, a weekly sports journal published in Chicago, which does not convince me that WP:IAR applies. Neither does his games total as mere participation does not confer notability, per consensus established by WP:NSPORTS2022. If somebody has better luck finding sources, I am more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely nonsensical to suggest that his accomplishments are not worthy of having a Wikipedia article. This is an extremely clear case where we should IAR. Deleting this would be among the most nonsensical things I have ever seen – Williams was an important member of one of the greatest football teams ever, was an original NY Giant, appeared in 30 games, almost all as a starter, and was named ALL-PRO by an official selector. Its frankly bulls**t to suggest that these are not worthy of being covered in an encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely mind-boggling. This place never ceases to amaze me. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 22:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Change to Weak keep per sources found by BeanieFan11 below. Alvaldi (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * keep completely passes WP:GNG--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE exist exactly for pages like this. The subject was a starter in the NFL and considered one of the best players at his position as he was recognized as an All Pro by an official selector. Even if he does not pass by the letter of WP:GNG (which may not be the case anyway) due to him playing in an era where SIGCOV was not even close to the level it is now, an article is warranted as he is an objectively recognized top player of his era.  Frank   Anchor  00:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, and brings into question if the nominator should receive more understanding of the RfD process before submitting obviously notable pages. Although nominated in good faith, time sinks of multiple noms of notable players, such as this one, indicate a misplaced lack of trust in long-term article creators. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the closing admin, see this where User:Randy Kryn was canvassed by BeanieFan11 to vote where the AFDs were "close". here is the original diff. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And please see here where he ASKED me to – when a user asks someone to show them a list of AFDs, it is not canvassing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Request editor Therapyisgood strike accusation of canvassing as stated at Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock. Not canvassing, just confusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep (With what has been presented below, I think GNG can be established now) The notability requirement for sports subjects is the GNG. If significant coverage of the subject as a person are not available, then they aren't notable, period. We already determined this via community consensus regarding NSPORTS months ago. Unless someone can present the required significant coverage, this article should be deleted. I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. If such an action is not heeded by the closer, then I expect I will have to take this to DRV afterwards. Silver  seren C 01:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. – No, the closer should not be just ignoring users saying to keep per IAR. That is a policy-based argument. And as I said above, deleting this would be extremely nonsensical given his accomplishments. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR is not allowed as an argument to circumvent notability requirements. Silver  seren C 01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If applying the notability guidelines would not improve the encyclopedia, then it is perfectly fine to IAR. I know as an NFL editor that deleting this would not at all help the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR is a policy that literally states rules should be ignored if they get in the way of improving an encyclopedia. And deletion of an objectively recognized top player of his era (specifically an All Pro) gets in the way of improving an encyclopedia.  Frank   Anchor  02:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reference to the claim that the policy WP:IAR "is not allowed as an argument to circumvent notability requirements."--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't a reference because the claim that "IAR is not allowed as an argument to circumvent notability requirements" is utter nonsense. First of all, GNG is a guideline, not even a policy, and IAR can be used to override policy.  Second, it's IAR, not IAREN (ignore all rules except notability). Third, if there is a rule saying that IAR is not allowed to override the notability guideline, then IAR could still override that rule. Rlendog (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm seeing a lot of mentions of Williams in my newspapers.com search, I'd say he passes NBIO (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability) as well:           , and others here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A large number of those sources seem to be trivial mentions of Williams. Would you be willing to provide WP:THREE sources of the bunch that you think cover Williams the most significantly? —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO#1. Second-team all-pro qualifies as a well-known and significant award or honor, and my perusal of the sources provided by BeanieFan11 make me think that there is significant coverage of him in at least one reliable independent source. I'd like more, but I think he's likely to be notable based off of the current stuff, and I think that a short (but longer-than-stub) article on him can reasonably be created based off of the sourcing that I'm able to find. The article isn't in great shape at the moment, but WP:DEL-CONTENT wisely notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * weak keep this is at least GNG adjacent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly there is coverage, and probably a lot more existed 90 years ago that isn't particularly accessible today. Meets GNG, as should be obvious for an all-pro, even if that is not explicit in NSPORT anymore. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (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.