Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Curtis


 * 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 redirect to Harvard–Yale football rivalry.  MBisanz  talk 02:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Nathaniel Curtis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insignificant individual and does not meet notability requirement. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It can be hard to come by sources for players who played way back when, but there seems to be quite a few on this guy. It looks like he played a notable role in the early years of the Harvard–Yale football rivalry. Lizard  (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: No, Lizard, you're inferring he played a notable role. Unfortunately, we can't infer someone might meet the GNG, there has to be positive proof he does, and the answer to "It can be hard to come by sources for players who played way back when" is "Then an article cannot be sustained on those players if those sources don't materialize."  Passing mentions can't be used to support notability, and quotes from subjects can't be used to support the notability of the subjects.  He obviously fails the pertinent NSPORTS criteria, and the sources listed only are passing mentions that don't satisfy the requirements of the GNG.   Ravenswing   13:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to article on the development of college football in the 1870s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wouldn't the Harvard-Yale rivalry article be a more apt redirect target?   Ravenswing   11:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Ravenswing argumentation here is spot on. If there are not sources from someone in at the time or in the historical process, then they are not notable per WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2016 (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.