Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Ferguson

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) Andrew nyr talk contribs 17:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Ferguson

[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)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:YOUNGATH. Despite having a decent statistical career at an FBS school, playing a high-profile position, and earning all-conference honors, I am unable to find any significant coverage outside of The Albuquerque Journal. Was able to find several featured articles from that newspaper (which I have added to the article), but GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage. Did not play professionally in the NFL, only a practice squad player for two seasons, and did not win any major college football awards. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per this, he rushed for 3,500 yards in three seasons. That's better than "a decent statistical career". I'd be surprised if a player with three consecutive 1,000-yard season lacks GNG-level coverage, so this one warrants a closer look. Cbl62 (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: I'm surprised how little I was able to find considering his college productivity, but maybe you'll have better success. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. My initial searches turned up a ton of coverage in the Albuquerque Journal but not finding depth of coverage elsewhere. Cbl62 (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing a lot of coverage on newspapers.com in Albuquerque, not surprising as he was a statistical monster, but also some in Texas and Colorado. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: Could you elaborate on the significant coverage you've found in Texas? I found a decent article in Colorado that I'm going to add to the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how significant the coverage, but here are some articles from Texas: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are there significant New Mexico newspapers that can be searched on-line other than the ABQ Journal? Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find a good way to search archives of the Santa Fe New Mexican. I did find this and this but I wouldn't call either significant coverage of Ferguson. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a good deal of significant coverage in the Daily Lobo (e.g., here, here, here, here), but it would not be considered independent since it's affiliated with UNM. Cbl62 (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's at least one piece from ESPN.com.
Also, FWIW, a few examples of coverage from the ABQ Journal: here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second article Eddy linked from the El-Paso Times is okay, the rest is mainly passing mentions. I'd also ignore Daily Lobo as not entirely independent, and the Santa Fe Mexican articles are passing mentions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Daily Lobo can be questioned on independence grounds (and said as much above) and doesn't count, at least not for AfD purposes. I'm still on the fence, but I don't agree that the ESPN piece is a "passing reference", since he is the subject of the article and headline. Likewise, the ABQ Journal coverage is very extensive. Cbl62 (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment College newspapers are sometimes, but not always, editorially independent of the university they are associated with. I don't know if this is the case for the Daily Lobo but if it is, then in my opinion it meets the requirements. Smartyllama (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Was on the fence for nearly three weeks as this AfD ran its course. The coverage is very significant in the The Albuquerque Journal and also in the Daily Lobo. Given that the latter may not be regarded as independent, this leaves us in a gray area under GNG. In the end, I lean toward "keep" per NBIO as Ferguson is "worthy of notice", "remarkable" or "significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or be recorded". In particular, a 1,000-yard season is considered a remarkable and noteworthy accomplishment for a college football player, and Ferguson did this not once but three times for a Division I program. Cbl62 (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr talk contribs 06:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew nyr: Relisting again? This has been on the board since November 17 and the only three votes since the nom was made have all been to "keep". Cbl62 (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I was on the fence over the relist, it can probably be closed as keep but I was playing it safe. Andrew nyr talk contribs 17:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.