Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Ambrose


 * 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. based on opinions that the sources offered during this AFD establish GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Walt Ambrose

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. He played 1 game in the NFL in which he did not start (according to Pro-Football-Reference). Significant coverage does not appear to exist for this player.

While it does pass WP:NGRIDIRON, a single appearance in a game in 1930 is not enough to indicate notability. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, (1) this person played in the National Football League, the highest level of football there ever was, which in my opinion should be enough for notability, and (2) Ambrose also (IMO) meets GNG, per   and . If that's not enough, then consider me voting on IAR grounds, as I think deleting NFL player articles do not at all improve the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Comment re-written at 19:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC) as NGRIDIRON no longer exists.
 * Found his obituary here, and an article about him being team captain here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a long article about him signing with the Portsmouth Spartans, I'd say its SIGCOV, so he may pass GNG as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here it mentions that he was first-team all-Big Four in 1929. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say he passes GNG as well. I'll expand the article soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1930–1939). I expanded the article as best I could, but I'm just not seeing enough to pass WP:GNG. The fact that his obituary (here) doesn't even mention that he played in the NFL speaks volumes about the notability of his one-game pro football career. However, as an alternative to deletion, I favor redirecting to the existing list article which includes significant biographical details. Cbl62 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think that this is not SIGCOV? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that qualifies as SIGCOV. The other two, not as much. Did my own search as well and didn't come up with anything better. Cbl62 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have significantly expanded the article (see differences between the nom and now), do you still think it should be redirected? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that this is SIGCOV. Have you been able to find anything else that qualifies as SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion,   and  are enough for a GNG pass. And I know I could find another piece of SIGCOV if given enough time, if the others aren't good enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * In addition to the volume of the coverage and what sort of article one might get out of that, the significance of it for indicating notability isn't ideal, either: the Wausau Daily Herald and the Portage Daily Register very much sound like tiny local papers from central casting.  Upmerger might be the preferable outcome, though it must be said we don't have an ideal general solution to that yet.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep with thanks to BeanieFan11 for finding the additional sources. --Enos733 (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Cbl62 and IP; they don't meet GNG, and most of the coverage that we do have is routine local coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He does meet GNG, as local coverage does count towards GNG and ROUTINE does not apply to people. And do you really think having an entry in a list which gives just five details about the person's entire life is better than having a 19-sentence article (on one of "the greatest tackles in the country") ? BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Asserting that Ambrose, in an era that included truly great tackles like Bronko Nagurski, Cal Hubbard, George Christensen, Pete Henry, and Link Lyman, was one of "the greatest tackles in the country" is ludicrous. The quote was idle puffery by a hometown, small-town (Portage, Wisconsin) newspaper as a result of Ambrose's playing at Carroll, a school that did not in 1930 compete at a high level even within the ranks of Midwestern football. The fact that he was cut after playing one game in the NFL, and that his obit doesn't even mention that he ever played football, further demonstrate that he was not remotely close to being one of "the greatest tackles in the country". Cbl62 (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think BeanieFan's sources are enough to demonstrate GNG, especially given the fact that most potential sources from when he was active are not readily available. While Cbl's redirect proposal could work, I don't see how including his bio (which is now fully sourced) within a list article with many other players is preferable to a standalone article, or how that would more be helpful to readers looking for information on him. Rlendog (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * keep I see no policy violations and seems to pass WP:GNG based on sources given.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:50, 7 April 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.