Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 09:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)

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

I have great respect for the creator of this article and I understand what they are trying to accomplish, but from a purely policy and guidelines perspective, I don't see this article meeting our notability guidelines. I don't doubt that there may be some extraneous benefits to this type of list, but in my opinion these benefits don't outweigh the glaring issues this topic faces when put up against WIkipedia's notability policies and guidelines. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 16:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * First, this article is a standalone list, so WP:LISTN comes into play. WP:LISTN says that "Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source." It also says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Neither of these is met, which is evident by a simple search on Google and the current sourcing in the article.
 * Since WP:LISTN doesn't seem to be met, we can look at WP:GNG. However, a simple search shows no reliable sources covering the topic of "people who have played one NFL game". It is not something that is discussed or analyzed in news sources.
 * This also fails WP:NOTSTATS, as it is simply a regurgitation of a database query on Pro Football Reference and/or Pro Football Archive. This is very evident as the only sources in the article is from these two sports database sites (even though there are 170+ inline citations).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 16:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, Pro-Football-Reference.com isn't the only source in the article, a few are by Pro Football Archives, a separate website. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fixed the nomination. Obviously, Pro Football Archive is still the same time of source: a sports database, so the argument still stands. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the argument doesn't still stand. Your point (as originally stated) was that this was just a database dump. Not true. This is a highly-curated list which will use all available information (Pro-Football-Reference, Pro Football Archives, NFL.com, and newspaper clippings) to identify those players who truly qualify as one-game players. It also provides an array of other core biographical details. Cbl62 (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep.
 * First, the list is enormously useful as an alternative to deletion. One-game players, especially in the NFL's early years, did not receive the type of SIGCOV needed to support stand-alone articles. Despite this fact, many sub-stubs have proliferated about these one-game players. This list provides an alternative to deletion, with an array of core information (and references) about such players that is not found elsewhere on Wikipedia.
 * Second, the topic of one-game players or "cup of coffee" players (both in the NFL and other pro sports) does receive substantial attention. See, e.g., this from The New York Times. See also this analysis of the best and worst out of the 1,167 one-game NFL careers. See also here and here.
 * Third, WP:NOTSTATS is absolutely NOT a rationale for deletion here. NOTSTATS covers "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." Here, the list is not a mere regurgitation of confusing or unexplained stats. It is a highly curated list of players with core details about their brief NFL and (where applicable) collegiate careers. It uses two separate databases (which sometimes do not agree) to identify the players who truly fit into this category.
 * Fourth, and while admittedly in the nature of "Other stuff exists," this list is fundamentally the same as the NHL one-gamers list that was overwhelmingly kept. See Articles for deletion/List of players who played only one game in the NHL (2nd nomination). Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I just wanted to note two things: I did not say this list couldn't be useful. But there are alternatives to Wikipedia for this type of information. And second, your New York Times article you cited is not applicable to this article, as it does not cover people who played in one NFL game between 1920 and 1929, a time when the NFL was a small-time league and employed just about anyone who could play. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 17:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The NYT article and other sources noted above don't specifically focus on one-game players of the 1920s, but they do show that one-game players are a notable topic, and as stated in WP:NLIST, "notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." NLIST also goes on to say: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This list fulfills all three of these purposes: information, navigation, and development." Cbl62 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  JBchrch   talk  17:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if used as redirect target There is not a basis for the BS notion of automatic notability, that people who played a mere single game are entitled to an article. Ted Richards (American football), for example, sourced only to this reference database without significant sources, should be redirected to this page instead. I would otherwise agree that it's a non-notable cross-categorization, but this makes for an ATD for completeness of such non-notable names. Reywas92Talk 18:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Service as a redirect target is one of the purposes this list can serve. In order to deter proliferation of sub-stubs, redirects could be created for the entries on the list that do not already have stand-alone articles. E.g., John Depner. A redirect to this list can also serve as an excellent alternative to deletion for sub-stubs that have already been created. And it also serves information, navigation and development functions that are explicitly approved in NLIST. Cbl62 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not like articles to be redirected to this list, as I personally believe many are notable and pass GNG. (If not, I must be very lucky, as the other day I randomly picked four players on this list to make an article of, Karl Thielscher, Shirley Brick, Carl Etelman, George Slagle, and got the first three into excellent shape. I also did Ching Hammill, another 1920s one-gamer, yesterday, and got it to C-class and am nominating for DYK) BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A redirect for a non-existent article serves no harm. E.g., John Depner. If and when a suitable stand-alone article (with SIGCOV) can be created (e.g., Karl Thielscher), the redirect can be converted into the stand-alone article. Similarly, if an article like Pete Vainowski is deleted (and assuming not overturned at DRV), then a redirect helps direct the reader to the most pertinent available information on the player. Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, three of the players selected played college football and gained attention from that. At the other end of the spectrum are the ones whose one appearance was not as a starter and who did not play college ball. I'd venture to bet a beer round that the overwhelming majority with one game as non-starter (and without college football) would not support a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, I can guarantee the fourth one I selected (George Slagle, who didn't attend college) is notable per GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. What I see here is not a redirect target, but an open encouragement to create standalone articles about all these people, since they all meet the WP:NAFOOT presumption. If you check List of players who played only one game in the NHL, you will see that all the names are blue. At Articles for deletion/List of players who played only one game in the NHL (3rd nomination), said When I created this article many years ago, my thought was to list the players with a short career summary without the need to create an article for each one. Over the years, though, editors created articles for each player anyway. If this list is intended to decrease the number of stubs about players who meet the NSPORTS presumptions, then it's likely to backfire.  JBchrch   talk  19:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tellingly, Masterhatch voted "Keep", and I disagree about the perceived incentives. The relationship between the NSPORTS guidelines and GNG have changed significantly since the NHL list was created. In today's stricter environment, I strongly expect that most of the one-game NHL players from the 1920s would be deleted if brought to AfD today. Cbl62 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 's vote was on sourcing grounds. JBchrch   talk  21:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When I created the NHL list 15+ years ago, I believed that a player who only played in one game and was otherwise not notable didn't deserve his own article. I felt a list of that kind with redirects and a player summary was better than stubs of iffy articles. I still believe today that a player whose only notability is a single game played probably doesn't deserve his own article. I'd rather see that player be a redirect to an article like this. If it's the case that things are getting stricter on which sports bio articles will make the cut, we'll need lists like this as an alternative (properly sourced of course). So, I'll vote keep here as I did there. Masterhatch (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that (of the two counter-policy&guidelines options mentioned) this is the more elegant-looking and at least superficially encyclopedic-looking alternative. But I doubt it will prove to be an alternative as such:  no sooner was it created than the NFL Wikiproject was discussing linking them all on the basis of their passing NGRIDIRON -- that sounds more like a to-do list and an WP:OTHERSTUFF ratchet than a manageable marginalia-mitigation measure.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The list actually serves multiple purposes. It is a redirect receptacle for players who don't warrant stand-alones. E.g., Max Broadhurst and Heinie Schultz (new redirects from former sub-stub lacking SIGCOV) and Bill Connell, Fred Clarke (American football), John Depner, and Walt Frickey (redirects in lieu of new articles). It can simultaneously serve as a check-list to identify players that do warrant stand-alone articles. E.g. Karl Thielscher (newly created from list). Finally, it provides an informational overview (and links) for readers interested in the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Checklists" should be in project-space, not encyclopedia articles. "Overview for readers interested in the topic" presupposes that it is a topic of encyclopedic standing:  which pretty clearly it's not, as pointed out by the nomination.  Indeed, it's a veritable compendium of WP:NOT.  So as I said in my previous comment, that leaves one "least worst" purpose:  that one unencyclopedic article is less bad than several such.  Except that we'll get the several too, looks like.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If we "get the several too", this list facilitates a policing function. Anyone who puts this list on their watchlist will be notified when a new article is linked and can then check to see if there is SIGCOV. Also, the notability of one-game careers is evidenced by the sources I cited above and those cited by Bagumba below. Cbl62 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Similarly to the point I made above, a "policing function" is something that projectspace is for. It does nothing to bolster the resemblance to an encyclopedia. The given sources are classic trivial mentions, and don't come within shouting distance of "significant coverage in reliable sources".  The articles on Yahoo and in the TCPP are interesting in that they speak to the one-hit wonder angle, but they only cover 17 players between them, and neither has a similar (league-wide and arbitrarily time-specific) scope to that of this article.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree. One of the important functions in policing such articles is to have an effective (and richly-detailed) receptacle for articles to redirect to, and we can't redirect to project space. Also, this piece (here) purportedly examined all "1,167 [who] have only appeared in one game" to compile its list of the best and worst one-game careers. Cbl62 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding that source, we should discount pieces from Bleacher Report's bloggy, click-bait list creation days. Even today, we need to be careful with who their full-time paid staff writers are and the amateurs who are not.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep as per my above reasoning. Masterhatch (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Cbl62 and Masterhatch. BilCat (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cbl62, who has sufficiently demonstrated that the purported arguments for deletion do not hold up. Regardless of the exact purpose of this article, it does not qualify to be deleted. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 13:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I am convinced of the article's purpose by Cbl62. I think it would make sense to redirect articles like Pete Vainowski, rather than outright deletion. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 01:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's a couple of more sources tangentially related to this topic: "They played in one game for the Vikings. That was it for a career." Twin Cities Pioneer Press and "Moment of Glory: Two men started at QB in their only NFL game. Another chance eluded them both". Yahoo.com—Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I appreciate all the effort that was put into the article, I do not see it meeting the notability criteria and the main reason given for keeping this article is the very reason I opposed its creation to begin with: it appears to be now used to get rid of early NFL stub articles through means of redirecting, many of which I could probably expand if given enough time. Another reason for inclusion editors here have expressed is that several one game players do get coverage, but my point is that there is only one source that even lists players from the 1920s. Yes there is the NYT article about six players--but that is about just six of them, and there are at least 1,000 (266 from this time period). Also, they do not discuss any from the era this page talks about. The only source listing all is Pro-Football-Reference.com, a database owned by Sports Reference. The other sources brought up by Cbl and Bagumba are ones by the Twin Cities Pioneer Press (discussing a single one-gamer), Bleacher Report (discussing ten of them), and Yahoo (discussing two), none of which discuss those of the 1920s, of which this AfD is about. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... interesting since you were an active participant in creating the list. The dozen or so articles that have thus far been redirected here are all very short (no more than a sentence or two) sub-stubs which have zero in the way of SIGCOV -- and which have no more informational value than is provided by the list. I searched for SIGCOV for each of these and found none. If SIGCOV is brought forward, there is nothing that prevents you or anyone from reversing the redirect and re-creating stand-alone articles. Cbl62 (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With some considerably mixed feelings, delete or move to project space. By the policies and guidelines -- as cited by  and .  Its scope is contrary to WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS, and its contents rely on what are very low-quality citations:  there's a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV demonstrated.  The basis of this is wholly the WP:NGRIDIRON "presumed" notability -- which seems to be rebutted here by a lack of WP:GNG, an WP:OTHERSTUFF line of argument, and that it might be convenient for editors in various ways.  Editorial convenience can be assured by copying the substance or moving entirety of this list into project space.  The OTHERSTUFF argument seems especially unfortunate, as it's not merely repeating the out-of-guideline existence of ht NHL example, it's even less compliant:  lack of any source (other than bleacher's very cursory reference) for a "all one-game players" scope, and then splitting it by decade, further arbitrarily.  And keeping this will lead to complaints that its "not fair" to players have have played more than once but fail to pass GNG, and presumably also to a present-decade article where players will churn on and off it constantly.  Having said all which...  it is an undeniably more elegant and encyclopedic-looking form than endless substubs.  Which strictly we shouldn't have either, but the dynamic seems to push us to having one or the other.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: The IP user's !vote above is mostly incomprehensible, but they raise a singular good point: what about players who played 2, 3, 4, etc games but still don't fall under GNG? Why not instead of doing the list like this, it would be much more economical if you boosted toward completing . I note that a bunch of these older team don't have lists. It seems to me to be better to ditch this style of list into completing the team lists, and those become even better redirect targets. Curbon7 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging to see what they think. Curbon7 (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * One-game players are a special class. There is special interest in (and coverage of) one-game players as such. Moreover, the 250 or so one-game players from the NFL's first decade are a particularly problematic group in terms of GNG. If someone were to devote the time to creating detailed lists on every NFL franchise, I agree that such lists could be effective redirect targets (albeit only in the case of players who only played for one team), but such lists do not currently exist.  The existing lists of players by team are simple lists of names that don't provide any of the details provided here. Accordingly, they provide much less desirable redirect targets. Preparing details-rich (and individually-sourced) team-by-team lists for all 25,000-plus historic NFL players would be a monumental task. Creating such a list for just 250 players was a big task. Cbl62 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * One (hopefully) final thought on the redirect point. I am a fan of American football history and have endeavored for 14 years to enhance Wikipedia's coverage of the sport. At the same time, I acknowledge that GNG-level coverage is difficult to find for many or most one-game players of the 1920s. I strongly dislike the idea of redirecting an NFL player to a team list (e.g., List of New York Giants players) that provides absolutely ZERO information about the player.  Such a list is nearly useless as a meaningful redirect target. That is why I developed this list.  Since many one-player games are underdeveloped sub-stubs sourced only to Pro-Football-Reference, this list provides a more enriching redirect target. Indeed, it provides essentially the same core information as could be gleaned from a sub-stub. The list endeavors simultaneously to serve the purposes of both those who seek to delete such articles (providing an effective redirect target) and those who seek to enhance our coverage of early American football players (by providing the sorts of details that would typically be laid out in a sub-stub). That's my goal. I think it's worthwhile. Hopefully, others see the value. Cbl62 (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely more accurately an indeterminate positive number of good points, given its not being comprehended otherwise? (Such harsh marking.)  One of which I'd (forlornly!) hoped addresses exactly this "special interest in (and coverage of)" point.  No source has been offered with the same scope as this article.  This is resting on an appeal to vaguely similarly scoped references:  the Somewhere Someteam's two one-game quarterbacks, and so on.  From that we'd have to infer that all one-gamers can be inferred to have such special interest, absent any such special coverage besides those sparse examples.  Then from there we make the further arbitrary scoping decision, "we're gonna have lots and lots of these -- better chop them up by decade!"  If we had a good source -- or even a couple of mediocre ones -- with this actual scope or one at all close to it, I'd be sold on this, as opposed to just semi-resigned.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This really doesn't seem to meet WP:LISTN. Ideally, the players wioch are non-notable here redirect to pages at Category:Lists of players by National Football League team, with the current information WP:PRESERVEd.  However, when you have existing plain list of 100s of players,  converting them to a table to retain the info involves mamually putting in a lot of repetive table formatting for columns of TBD data (WP:NODEADLINE). Can this be automated? Otheriwse, do we just WP:IAR with this current non-optimal, interim solution to improve WP by avoiding permastubs?—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.