Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tex Kelly

Tex Kelly

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American football player who does not meet general notability or the current version of sports notability. The only references are database entries. There currently does not appear to be a gridiron football notability guideline, so the only guideline is general notability. This article makes no mention of independent significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Oklahoma. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A player with 17 games (with 10 as a starter) in the National Football League, over a period of seven years, with five teams, at AFD?! When people have done this much in the NFL, we should be able to IAR, as deleting articles of players with this much experience at the highest level do not at all help the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'll add that I am very sure that offline sources do exist, as first of all he played five seasons in the NFL over 90 years ago and secondly, this article calls him both a "celebrity" and a "star." BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Response above fails miserably to demonstrate notability. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You "failed miserably" to understand my comment. I said "IAR" (i.e. when someone has such accomplishments in the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, we should be able to keep regardless of GNG). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To both of you: Let's not accuse anyone of "failing miserably" at anything. This really isn't that serious an issue anyway. Please keep in mind WP:CIVIL. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If there were a gridiron football notability guideline, as there was in the past, I wouldn't have nominated this. But this is an example of the chaos resulting from an intentional change in eligibility rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a thorough search of the Newspapers.com archives revealed no coverage outside of team lineup notices. As a result, he fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com is far from complete. I am sure that if it was, we would definitely be able to find SIGCOV on Kelly, as he played more than a full season in the National Football League. And if having a career that long in the highest level of pro football cannot make you notable, then there are big issues with our notability guidelines. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 17 games in the NFL, with 10 of them as a starter, is notable. If it wasn't we'd have to delete at least a few thousand pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete (reluctant)~~. I also searched and came up empty of SIGCOV. Accordingly, the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC (mandatory SIGCOV requirement for sport biographies). The reality is that the NFL wasn't the NFL in the 1920s. The league then fielded teams in minor-league cities such as Pottsville, Kenosha, Hammond, Dayton, Evansville, Rock Island, Racine, Duluth, etc. and just hadn't built the following it did later. As the AfD plays out over the next six days, I'd be delighted to change my vote if SIGCOV can be found. Cbl62 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Are you still sure you want it deleted? I have expanded it to the point that it is now a (very) decent C-class biography. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of wanting it deleted. It's a question of applying the rules honestly. The article is now much improved, so I will withdraw my "delete (reluctant)" vote, though I still don't see the SIGCOV that could persuade me affirmatively to vote "keep". Color me beige. Cbl62 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this page does get deleted, I would really hate to see it not be rescuable, e.g. as a draft article or userfied somewhere. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he played 17 NFL games over 7 seasons in an era where media coverage was nowhere near the current level. This is clearly a case where WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE need to be used. Frank Anchor 16:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a major expansion of the article (see differences between when nominated and now) so that it is now a decent c-class biography. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the added sources are nothing more than passing mentions in match reports, as well a singular passing mention in some pre-season coverage. Still a WP:GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be kept. When an article can be written of this type quality, on a National Football League player (especially one who played more than a FULL season and for five different teams), we should be able to keep regardless of GNG (i.e. IAR. Deleting articles like this DO NOT improve the encyclopedia). Our goal here at WP is to help the reader, right? Let's say you're a reader, would you rather have a very detailed biography of a person you're interested in (in the past year, this article has been viewed about 600 times, showing that there is an interest in this guy), or nothing at all? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If an article fails WP:GNG and does not pass the relevant SNG it should be deleted, full stop. WP:ITSUSEFUL is a textbook reason of why not to keep an article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all GNG/SNG-failing articles need to be deleted. There are sometimes special cases where we should IAR, when following the guidelines would not improve the encyclopedia. This is one of those cases. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If we are not seeing sources for an NFL player from 100 years ago, it most likely because sources of that vintage are difficult to find, not because they don't exist. IAR if not GNG. Rlendog (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm satisfied with the new sourcing and arguments for inclusion. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 12:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a tip of the cap to BeanieFan11 for expanding the article. I understand NGRIDIRON is no longer, but I agree with Frank Anchor in that sources likely didn't exist like they do today. Playing ten games in the National Football League is notable enough (IMO,) and I feel like we can ignore the rules in this case. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 12:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11, he is right on the money of what he had said. Sportsfangnome (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]