Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Chalmers Tschappat

You can't find stats because of the position he played. It would be highly unusual for a person playing the tackle position to generate stats. The NFL wasn't recording even basic stats, let alone fumble recoveries or the like, in its early days. Cbl62 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually he would get a stat - tackles (no pun intended). If there was a turnover, then he would have had a chance to get a tackle stat.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, those sorts of defensive stats weren't tracked until well after World War II. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If defensive players did not have their stats tracked in any meaningful way at the point of time of this player, that would make it even a stronger case for deletion. We are to mirror what third-party and secondary sources say about topics, and so if these players got no recognition, it is not our responsibility to make up for that failure of the media then. --M ASEM (t) 17:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I found this references from Pro-Football reference from a game in which an offensive lineman scored a touchdown, so it appears that it is a retroactive stat, which shows that there are stats available for players of this era. Also, it appears that he played both offense and defense - standard procedure at that particular time.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 17:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your link is not working, but, yes, there was tracking of scoring stats. However, it's a very unusual circumstance for a linemen to score a touchdown. Linemen are not expected to be carrying the ball; they are expected to make tackles, blocks, fumble recoveries, etc.  Those stats weren't tracked in the olden days.  Which is why when you look at linemen from the 1920s, even Hall of Famers like George Trafton, you don't find "stastics."  Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Link should work now. What's even more rare (as is shown by my link) is a receiving touchdown by a lineman, as I don't think the passing game was not as used as it is today.  But I also think the T-formation was the prevalent formation in that period of time.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 18:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a remarkable achievement by Joe Mulbarger! My point, though, is that an NFL lineman isn't expected to have scored a touchdown in order to pass muster under WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But NGRIDIRON like all SNG does imply that because they played in pro football, more sources should be possible to be found about the person and thus we presume notability for the stand-alone article so that it has time to develop. AGF-based searches of someone that played a century back has failed to bring any sources. Ergo, that presumption was wrong. SNGs are not guarantees of an article. --M ASEM (t) 20:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Technically, the subject satisfies the specific notability guideline of WP:NGRIDIRON, having played two regular season games in the American Professional Football Association (APFA) -- the original name of the National Football League (NFL) -- in its very first year (1920). While I would suggest we are pushing the extreme margins in extending a presumption of notability under NGRIDIRON, I also note that we have extended that presumption to numerous early 1920s APFA/NFL players in other AfDs.  The subject is clearly a very minor figure in NFL history, and would probably never survived a full analysis under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG.  This AfD presents an opportunity to explore the limitations, if any, we might recognize with regard to NGRIDIRON's one-game presumption, or whether we simply affirm NGRIDIRON as an absolute.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment We have an article about every person that's ever played in Major League Baseball. If this guy played today we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. There are practice squad only NFL players on Wikipedia. Articles for deletion/Nick DeCarbo This is pretty much the same discussion. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See my reason above. You are 100% right that if he played today we would not be having this discussion because we have not given time for sourcing to develop about a current player (I would expect a snow-close keep of such an AFD). But 20-30 years after he retires/dies and no sourcing beyond affirmation he was on a roster? Yeah, that's when the presumption of notability kicks in. --M ASEM (t) 20:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why did this pass Articles for deletion/Nick DeCarbo, you can relist it if you want WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WikiOriginal, to my way of thinking it's a matter of degree: Tschappat played in two games in 1920, when the APFA/NFL was in its first year and the quality of its plat was arguably not on par with the Ivy League or Big Ten. DeCarbo played an entire 11-game season in 1933, when the quality of play was that of a college all-star level.  No small difference.  The larger question is how we rationalize the relationship between NGRIDIRON (and other sports specific notability guidelines) and GNG, when a given SNG is technically satisfied, but GNG cannot be satisfied within any reasonably lenient interpretation of it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically a withdraw by the nom is not a "pass". While Dirtlawyer is correct that there is a difference between a couple games and a full season of play, we are still talking about someone that had a career over 70 years ago, and passed away more than twenty years ago. Sourcing beyond statistics should be readily available by now. I have personally not checked for sourcing, but if an editor actually dug around, maybe even going to Pittsburg's local libraries to search the back newspaper archives at that time and failed to find anything - that is, the state of that article is all we're going to get from sourcing - then this would still beg the presumption of notability and deletion would be appropriate. But I emphasis the time since he played is important here. If he played, say, in 1993 instead of 1933, I would be more leninent to keep even if no sourcing was found yet. --M ASEM (t) 21:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Does MLB seem to have a different standard. Dan Abbott played 3 games in 1890. Also, just a random thought ,but in 100 years when world War 3 hits and all the links on articles are dead and sources destroyed will we delete articles from 2010. lol WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, honestly, we're not talking about topics where there might have been sources but have been long destroyed. I would think WP works on the idea that humanity is wisely heading to a situation where every printed document will be saved, perhaps digitally, and we never lose sources. And Dan Abbott would be a case where deletion would seem appropriate if there is no further sourcing to be found. I stress that a good faith effort to prove no sources exist does need to be done before AFD can be started, which I dunno if is the case for Abbott.  --M ASEM  (t) 21:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Abbot would probably never get deleted though. Above I said there is an article on everyone who has ever played in MLB. There is actually is. I wasn't exaggerating. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be because MLB was the most popular sport in America for the longest time. 1920s MLB definitely got more coverage than 1920s NFL. Also, there are many more players on a football roster than an MLB roster. The second string infielder probably gets more coverage than the 3rd or 4th string running back or lineman. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If the only thing that someone actively and putting a strong effort to find sources for Abbott end up being box scores and passing mentions, deletion is then appropriate; so much time has since past that there is no expectations of more sourcing to come. An Internet-only search is not going to cut it, for example, since most will be newspaper archives. Doesn't matter if he was in baseball, football, or whatever sport.  --M ASEM  (t) 22:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hence the reason for AFD discussions. If one editor cannot find sources, another might be able to because we all have different ways of finding sources, whether they are online or offline. It seems clear to me that offline sources are the only way for this article to pass GNG since I wasn't able to find any online sources. I have seen a lot of AFD's that, upon initial nomination, didn't pass GNG in any respect, yet through the time the discussion was open, enough sources were found (and added) that made the article pass the related notability guidelines. This was my aim with this nomination.  ArcAngel    (talk) ) 23:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And what's important here is this is why the word "presumed" is used for notability - it admits initial judgement of notability for one reason can be shown wrong later when more evidence (or demonstration of lack of evidence) is shown. --M ASEM  (t) 23:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have run searches using my new Newspapers.com account and Google News Archive, and have found nothing more than trivial last-name-only mentions of "Tschappat" in game summaries for West Virginia Wesleyan University in 1916 and 1917. These were literally roster lists for given games.  Google News Archive, unfortunately, is no longer what it used to be, as many newspapers have withdrawn free access to old editions through Google.  I also found a claim on "Oldest Living Football Player" website that the subject player for the Dayton Triangles was not named "Chalmers Tschappat," but "John F. Tschappat" (see here), which really points to just how thin our references are.  NFL.com lists a "Chalmer Tschappat" corresponding to the subject (see here), with his birth date, birth place, and West Virginia Wesleyan as his college alma mater.  I will wait to hear what other editors are finding with their various newspaper archive searches.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on a keep !vote ** No, we're talking about the presumption of notability here. None of the NSPORT criteria are automatic "keep" conditions. --M ASEM (t) 13:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NGRIDIRON. This is a snowball keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No it's not. NGRIDIRON, like all subject-specific notability guidelines, set a presumption of notability, that because that person did something there's a good chance more sources can be found to expand the topic as such to allow a stand-alone article to be written and to give time for it to be developed and sources to be found. But it is only a presumption, and if the presumption is shown wrong (as is the case here, the lack of any discovery of sourcing decades after the person's acitivty in the field), then we delete that article. Otherwise, you are creating inherited notability which is not allowed on WP. --M ASEM (t) 18:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is sourced. He played two games in 1921.  The source is widely accepted as reliable.  I still find no reason to delete.  Just what exactly about this presumption of notability do you believe has been shown wrong--because I don't see it, and it seems that very few others in this discussion can either.  I am curious, have you reviewed every reliable offline source from 1921 to make sure that there's no mention of him?  That's how you would "prove the presumption wrong" in my book, and I don't believe that is possible.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * First, just because it can be sourced reliably is not a reason for inclusion, otherwise we'd have over a billion articles on random living persons; this is why we look to notability and make sure we can grow it out further. If this is all that can be reliably sourced, then there is no further possible growth for this article, and thus is a permastub, and we don't keep permastubs, so deletion would be appropriate. And yes, it is impossible to prove the negative - that there is absolutely no sourcing of any type - but you can demonstrate what good faith efforts you have tried to find sourcing, and if that includes searching archives of local papers at the time the person was supposedly active and finding absolutely nothing beyond what's already stated, that's probably a good sign there aren't other sources. Again, there's been decades for someone to write about this person as well, so its unlikely any new sources are coming either (in contrast to, say, a player from the 1990s where there is still a chance for further sourcing).  That's how presumption has worked at WP:N since forever. We allow the SNGs to have these clauses to give them time to find sources and for new sources to come around, but this is a case where something should have happened by now and apparently nothing did. --M ASEM  (t) 16:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Paul, there is only ONE reliable source to substantiate the subject having played two games in the APFA/NFL in 1921: Pro-Football-Reference.com, and we don't count player stats profiles on sites like PFR, DBF or NFL.com as "significant" coverage per the general notability guidelines. Bottom line: no one, Cbl62 included, is finding any substantial newspaper coverage about his pro career; in fact, my newspaper archive search turned up a big goose egg -- not a single trivial roster mention.  The question to be decided in this AfD is not whether the subject satisfies GNG; it's increasingly clear he doesn't -- and that's not surprising, as he was a lineman who only played in two games.  The question is whether we are going to continue to extend the one-game presumption per WP:NGRIDIRON even when the subject demonstrably fails GNG, and it's not even a reasonably close call.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Dirt, I don't agree that Tschappat doesn't pass WP:GNG. As I noted above, he played in the early 1920s when source material is very difficult to find.  It takes hours and dollars to root out sources from that era, particularly when the person didn't play in New York or Boston.  In some cases, I've been willing to expend the necessary hours and dollars, but we shouldn't have to do that for someone who has played in the NFL -- the highest level of American football.  Deleting an article like this and weakening the presumption of MLB/NFL notability would accomplish nothing other than invite an onslaught of AfDs from the many sports-hating Wikipedians who would love nothing more than to have the door cracked open for them. Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC);
 * By way of example, I created the Hugh Lowery article in the last couple days. He also played only a few games as a lineman during one APFL season.  I spent the money and hours to do the research on him and found sources that I think even Masem would agree satisfy WP:GNG.  We ought not be required to go to such expense and effort in order to save every early APFA/NFL player from deletion.  The Lowery article shows that the presumption of notability for NFL players is valid and should be maintained. Cbl62 (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But we do expect that we have more than a few passing sources. At some point someone has to do the work to find these sources, otherwise you are basically arguing that there is a perpetual cycle for keeping articles which simply isn't acceptable for WP. And we're talking Dayton, not Siberia or the South Pole here. We're also not expecting that we actually have the sources at hand but that the sourced have been identified at minimum, and per Dirtlawyer, even that is not bringing up anything right now. Remember, the burden is on those that want to keep information when others have shown a good faith effort to locate sources and found none. This might be deleted and there might be a chance that we're wrong, that someone finds a trove of information later. Okay, fine, we can then have the article restored or recreated. But remember that WP does not work on the idea of inherited notability. Not every player in the NFL or the MLB or any other pro league is automatically notable - we allow for presumptions based on certain conditions but we will reevaluate those over time (decades from now for players playing now) to make sure that presumption is correct. (And I will agree Lowery seems fine). -- User:Masem 16:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And one other quick thing to add - the AFD of these types of articles requires that BEFORE has been done - specifically the type of source-search that Dirtlawyer is doing. I cannot go to a random APFL player from 1920s where their article has only a few sources, and going "AFD, non-notable" without making any attempt to find sources myself. But as soon as that effort (and assuming good faith, a significant and appropriate effort) was done, the burden now shifts to those that want to keep to prove otherwise. --M ASEM (t) 17:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I did do some research before nomination. I couldn't find any online sources.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your nom and comments suggest you did, I'm just speaking in general why there should be no fear that there's going to be a rash of AFDs of APFL players just because they presently lack major sources, since there has to be work to try to find sources first to require the counter-arguement at AFD). --M ASEM (t) 17:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems to me that those opposed to keeping the article are focusing their arguments on whether or not WP:NGRIDIRON is a valid application. Hey, eveything is up for discussion... but I don't believe this is the place to challenge WP:NGRIDIRON.  AFD is not the place to challenge widely accepted practices based on generally accepted guidelines.  I suggest that discussion go to Notability (sports) (the main page of WP:NGRIDIRON).  As near as I can tell, this article meets every applicable check in that guideline.  Please note that nowhere in that guideline does it state that there is a deadline to establish notability by some other means or the presumption of notability established by WP:NGRIDIRON falls away.  That argument has been introduced here.  It may be a valid argument (it's intriguing, that's for sure), but it really should go through consensus first.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not challenging NGRIDIRON. We are following the fact that NGRIDIRON, like NSPORTS in general and all SNGs, are presumptions about notability that can be challenged when faced with the fact that no sourcing can really be found for a topic; that's a global facet of notability guidelines. Yes, there is no deadline, but there's also a reasonable amount of time we can sit and wait for sources to appear, and nearly a century is pretty much well beyond fair. This has been the way notability is set up and worked for years, and not a novel case, as this avoids the concept of "inherited notability" (in this case, just for playing a pro game). This is exactly the case that when we talk about the presumption of notability, and how the SNGs are meant to interact with that. --M ASEM  (t) 20:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You actually have things backwards, Masem. For someone who played 90 years ago, it's much more difficult to retrieve sources than it is for someone who played in the last 20 years, during the digital era.  The presumption of notability is actually more important and apropos for someone who played in the early years of football than it is for a newer player. Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Retrieve yes, locate no. To satisfy the claim made "there are no sources about this person", all that needs to be done is to say is to identify the possible works that would have the information - eg we just need the citations for these that are from clear RS; that's all that is sufficient to keep the article (at least for myself). The argument that you are using would basically allow for perpetually keeping articles with no chance to delete, which simply is a non-starter for Wikipedia. The presumption of more sources existing that extends from NGRIDIRON has been challenged and the nom and others have provided what steps they have tried to find said sources without luck, that puts the burden on those that want to keep to show sources. This is standard practice. --M ASEM (t) 20:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to challenge WP:GRIDIRON or any other guideline. User:Masem has stated that those presumptions of notability "can be challenged when faced with the fact that no sourcing can really be found for a topic" -- yet, sources have been found and are included in the article.  There it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We're looking for significant coverage in secondary sources, not just sources that mention him in passing. Sure, you can prove he existed and played, but without significant coverage, it's not encyclopedic coverage that we require. --M ASEM (t) 21:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think when you say "we" you actually mean "yourself" -- I, for one, prefer WP:GRIDIRON and WP:GNG as a guidelines since they have been peer reviewed extensively. But to further the "significant coverage" comment, I have no reason to believe that the article in its present state contains no original research and therefore must have been sourced in secondary sources.  That seems to be reasonably significant to me.  We know his date and place of birth, date and place of death, that he played colelge at West Viriginia Wesleyan, was 5'11" and weight 180 pounds, he played two games professionally for the Dayton Triangles, that he was an offensive line coach, that he studied chemistry at Ohio State, his father was an Ohio native and a boiler maker, and that he served in the US Army medical Division during World War II.  And a bunch more.  There's significant coverage about his life.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's data, and gives no reason why a reader needs to know about this person. Taking your logic, I can pretty much write articles about nearly every single graduating college student in the US over the last decade, since all that data is going to be available and sourceable. But WP avoids such indiscriminate information, and that is done by required signficiant coverage by secondary sources, which none of this is. Why was he an important player to his team? Why should the reader know about him? None of the sources give that type of information (just like the majority of college grads are nobodies).  We discriminate a lot more than you think when it comes to topics. --M ASEM  (t) 21:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, there's a whole bunch of invalid arguments in that paragraph and I don't know where to start! First, every college graduate over the past decade clearly cannot pass WP:GRIDIRON or many other notability measures. We're not talking about every other college grad from the last decade, we're talking about one specific NFL athlete from the 1920's who clears WP:GRIDIRON.  Second, we're not talking about "indiscriminate" information but clearly have WP:DISCRIMINATE information.  Third, because this information has been found in third party reliable sources, it meets the requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources" (defined in WP:GNG as "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material")  Fourth, the statement "Why should the reader know about him" you are inferring that you don't want to know about him... and that's fine, that's okay... but that does not mean that there are no readers who want to know.  Insignificant to one person does not mean insignificant to all, and that's bringing in point of view, which is opinion.  Opinion is welcome of course, but that's all it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Paul, virtually all of the information you just rattled off was gleaned from primary sources by Cbl62, not from published secondary sources. Draft records, military service records, census records, etc., cannot be used to establish notability.  Please review the article footnotes; GNG requires secondary sources for notability.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are secondary sources, not primary sources. For example, I doubt seriously that the author of the article dug the guy up and measured his height.  That would be original research.  Looking up the published research of someone else is secondary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely wrong. Secondary sources are ones that transform primary information (eg a player's height) into novel thoughts, through analysis, synthesis or other commentary (eg "Tschappat's height was a key factor in his on-field performance" would be a secondary source). Reiterating a measurement or fact someone else wrote without transformation is still a primary source. --M ASEM (t) 21:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll bite: The New York Times, Steubenville Herald Star, Spalding's Official Foot Ball Guide, The Ohio State University Catalogue, Ohio State Monthly, and Pro-Football-Reference.com are all "primary sources" and shouldn't be allowed?  Seriously?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In this specific context, where the player is only being listed as being on a roster, yes, those are primary sources. Note (because I can see where this question is heading), whether a source is primary or secondary is based on what the information it is giving and the topic it applies to. --M ASEM  (t) 22:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, in my world, the newspapers would all be considered secondary sources. University course catalogs, draft records, military service records, Veterans Administration records, and census records are generally primary source documents.  The usual distinction is whether something is published and/or disseminated, although the distinction can get blurry: is an interview with the subject that was published in a national magazine a primary or secondary source?  I would suggest that it is secondary because of the interviewee/author distinction and professional editorial control.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP uses the concept of transformation of information to determine the difference between primary and secondary (per WP:PSTS and the talk page). Newspaper stories - reiterating news events without interpretation of the meanings/factors invovled - are nearly always primary. On the other hand, an opinion piece or an obit or an in-depth story will likely be secondary. --M ASEM (t) 22:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:PRIMARYNEWS, which explains how we interpret newspaper stories. I will point out, again, a newspaper is not always primary or secondary, but depends on context. --M ASEM (t) 22:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To add to Dirtlawyer's point, we're past the point that this article can hide behind the claim of notability given by NGRIDIRON. GNG sourcing has been looked for and not found and unlikely to be created in the near future, and as such, deletion is appropriate at this time unless those secondary sources can be found. --M ASEM (t) 21:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that is an incorrect application of the guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am one of main authors of the WP:N guideline and involved in many of the RFCs on it over the years, I'm pretty sure I know how it applies. --M ASEM (t) 21:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you're Jimmy Wales, you're still overreaching the long-standing application of the guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am explaining the long-standing application of WP:N, specifically the "presumption" aspect and how it is used in practice. This is how it should be used. Even NSPORT uses the word "presumed", and the logic applies. Meeting NGRIDIRON does not prevent a fair challenge to the lack of GNG-type sourcing for an article. --M ASEM (t) 22:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * * Actually, your proposed, and highly restrictive, interpretations of WP:NSPORT were rejected in the debate leading up to its passage. And over the past few years, you've been trying to re-write that history to make it more restrictive.  You have even argued recently that WP:NSPORT trumps WP:GNG, which is plainly contrary to consensus.  Not saying you're not entitled to your point of view, you certainly are, but trying to hold yourself out as a main author of the guideline is just a little bit much.  I, too, participated in the debate leading up to the passage of WP:NSPORT, and your view has no more authority or weight than mine or Paul's. Paul is an administrator who has been as active as anybody with respect to AfDs about American football. Cbl62 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. I pointed out that we (from RFCs) allow SNGs to define more explicit sources that might be more restrictive than the GNG (as in the case of NSPORTS where a topic only covered by local sources is inappropriate). The problem is that sports projects have acted as walled gardens in the past, trying to claim how other standards that apply across WP don't apply to them, and that's an issue that is reflected in the broad allowances of NSPORTS. If we are going to allow for broad SNG inclusion, there has to also be a fair way to challenge it, and this is exactly a case where the challenge is fair and should be completed. --M ASEM (t) 22:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I knew it. This just comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT for you. Taking revenge on "the sports projects" is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No it's not. This is a strong case of how the notability guidelines are supposed to interact that has been discussed at WP:N and various guideline including NSPORT before. It is a case where without any sourcing being shown to exist, deletion is the proper course of action. Remember, I was invited to this by Dirtlawyer, I didn't actively seek this one out. --M ASEM (t) 22:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at the sources in the article, and there's only one that verifies he played in the AFPA/NFL. The rest appear to be mentions of his college career, which was (on the face of it), more significant (All-state, and I swore I saw two-time All-american somewhere, but of course now I can't find it) which I admit, according to WP:NCOLLATH criteria #1, he would also pass.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 21:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Though even if he passes NCOLLATH, we're in the same boat - NCOLLATH is also providing a presumption of notability that more sources that satisfy the GNG can be found. At this point, it's great we can find sources that pile on his allocades, but the challenge that is still out there is to find secondary sources. --M ASEM (t) 21:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)