Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruel Redinger

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The consensus of the editors in this discussion is that the sources found establish that GNG is met. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruel Redinger

[edit]

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

Ruel Redinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a WP:BEFORE search on Newspapers.com for both "Otis Redinger" and "Ruel Redinger" yields no results. There's one book on him saying he played at Penn State and joined the Army, but otherwise no go. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He played 7 games in the NFL based off Pro-Football-Reference, that absolutely makes him notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per IAR and GNG. Redinger played 7 games in the National Football League, including 5 as a starter, and has received lots of coverage: he's been mentioned in historical football books [1] [2] [3] [4], and plenty of newspapers (even in the New York Times! Twice!) – [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (which mentions him 23 times) [10] [11] [12] etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • First four book mentions are only in passing (yes, I looked at them), I can't access The New York Times references but based on their length and the title of one I would find it hard to believe he's notable based on those. I'm looking at the others now. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still, when someone has played more than half a dozen National Football League games, and has been mentioned in so many sources (books, nyt, loads of newspaper mentions/short articles), we should be able to keep. These could also be seen as a pass of NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's hard to find sources – at least without making a genuine effort – for players who played so long before the internet age. That's not a valid reason to delete. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by BeanieFan11. Seems the subject's common name may actually be "Pete Redinger". Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I looked at the sources found by BeanieFan11 but unfortunately I don't think they are enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG so I recommend a redirect to the List of Canton Bulldogs players. Note that !votes based on WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and playing a game in the NFL equals notability are not policy based and should be discounted. Alvaldi (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I think I've been here long enough to know how deletion discussions work. Presumably the same can be said for the closing admin. I understand that not everyone shares my perspective, but it's a cheap move to try to win a discussion by telling the admins to ignore the other side. Also, that page you linked to is an essay that carries no underlying authority. It really is true that the sources establishing notability for early football players can be much harder to find because they often aren't available on the internet. It becomes exhausting trying to make this case when 1) a user mass-nominates a bunch of these articles and refuses to listen to objections, and 2) someone like you rushes in to tell those of us who are familiar with the content area that our opinions are invalid because they don't fit your very tight interpretation of policy. I'm genuinely not trying to be a jerk here, but it gets really old watching a handful of editors try to push the people who care about these articles out of the discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to push anyone out of the discussion and I'm neither trying to be a jerk here. But just as you find my above statement problematic, I find it a problem when a group of editors repeatedly post non-policy based keep !votes in AfD's in an effort to keep an article of a subject that has not been shown to pass the inclusion criteria. Out of the five keep !votes so far, only two are policy based. Alvaldi (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You used an essay to claim that my !vote was not policy-based. That's hardly persuasive. As I said before, I know how deletion works. My rationale was not based on this specific case alone (Beanie has demonstrated notability in this case IMO) as much as on the broad concern that the OP is on a quest to target as many of these articles as he can. It is not reasonable for an editor to conduct low-effort BEFORE searches, dump the burden of proof on the editors who care, and then refuse to engage at his talk page before running off to deletion review when he doesn't get his way. Even if I were to concede that some of these articles are edge cases, their existence is not actively harming the encyclopedia. Yet the nom refuses to listen to anyone, and now you are lobbying for our comments to be ignored. Again, I'm not trying to assume bad faith on your part, but it is hard to avoid feeling railroaded. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that !votes based on WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and playing a game in the NFL equals notability are not policy based and should be discounted. – Users saying to keep because that coverage is extremely likely to exist, just very hard to find, is a completely valid argument for a topic like this – just as is saying that we should IAR and keep someone who has seven games of NFL experience. And FWIW, I disagree with you that the coverage is not sufficient for notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I don't want to play waste-the-editors-time by commenting on each of the blitz of nominated articles, so please let me know which ones are close enough to comment on. Isn't there a rule about more than 11 nominations on the field at the same time (or am I thinking of something else...). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sources found and provided meet WP:GNG. How about WP:IMPACT also... WP:IAR is sa valid argument if you like.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided by BeanieFan making this a clear pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 20:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources given above do appear to be significant coverage, the newspaper ones especially. I can access them and they do specifically cover Redinger significantly. SilverserenC 01:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources identified in this discussion are adequate to establish notability. It would be nice if editors who have access to the full text versions as opposed to snippets and headlines would actually cite and use those sources to improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided by BeanieFan11 demonstrate that this individual has been covered significantly by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. As such, this individual passes WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG and is not precluded from having an article under WP:BIO1E, so the article should be kept. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to WP:ROUTINE objections raised below, that's part of WP:NEVENT, which obviously is not the relevant notability guideline described in WP:DEL-REASON#8. WP:SBST also characterizes routineness as an event-related criterion, but we're discussing a biographical entry here. I agree that mentions of the subject in some of the sources are brief, but I do think that they demonstrate more than a trivial mention of this individual in multiple independent reliable sources. We have enough to write a short biographical entry on the person that complies with WP:NPOV, so I do still support keeping here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, hawk, that's incorrect. WP:NSPORTS talks about routine coverage in several places: must provide reports beyond routine game coverage...game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage...(1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage... It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability...outside routine coverage of each game. WP:NSPORTS talks about "routine coverage" so much it's even Question 7 of the FAQ:

    Q7: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports?

    A7: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Wikipedia's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources, also see Wikipedia's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information.

    "Routine" is not an NEVENT thing, it is absolutely relevant to sports notability. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, though I had been looking from a general WP:NBASIC perspective since most of his notability appears to come from things other than professional sports. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, the whole coverage of the internal dissention within the team is non-routine, significant, and was carried independently in both Pittsburgh and Brooklyn (see below). The WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC required that at least one piece of SIGCOV be presented and, well, we have that. Taken together with WP:NCOLLATH given the national coverage of the individual, I see a persuasive reason to keep. The article will remain short, but I do think he's (marginally) notable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also note that WP:NCOLLATH seems to be written with modern college athletes in mind, though athletes who [g]ained national media attention as an individual (which we see here given the attention to him in the New York Times) are presumed notable under that guideline. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Per the sources found but not yet in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - given the vintage, I am satisfied with the sources. Rlendog (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Canton Bulldogs: or List of Canton Bulldogs players. We have sources that are game reports, and mention the subject's name, and basic roster moves, but they're all brief mentions. Even combined, it's not enough to support an entire article; we know very little about this player, there is almost no WP:RS that has biographical information (as opposed to being mentioned for having played in a game or tried out for a team). Please ping me if anyone can point to RSes that have actual biographical material about the person, happy to change my !vote. Levivich (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple games in the NFL confers notability per longstanding WP practice. Carrite (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOCALCON does not override global consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. 1: a couple mentions, Red XN. 2: mentions among lists of players, Red XN. 3: likely insignificant mention, but the rest of the preview isn't visible. 4: trivial mention, Red XN. 5 and 6: "Specials" to the NYT with routine transactional coverage of several players, Red XN. 7: routine transfer coverage, Red XN. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14: can't access. 13: mild local coverage of behavioral issues from Redinger and a teammate that would comprise at most a single sentence on wiki, Red XN. Barring actual SIGCOV of Redinger directly in the articles I can't access, GNG has not been established and the requirements of SPORTBASIC are not met. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would make absolutely no sense here and I completely disagree with your source assessment, especially since "routine" does not apply to people (its part of the criteria for events). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained to you before and as has been affirmed in numerous AfDs, NSPORT uses "ROUTINE coverage" 4 times specifically in the context of athlete notability, defining it as, among other things, coverage of the subject that appears within routine coverage of events. This explicitly includes repeating of their statistics and mentions in game summaries. Furthermore, NOTNEWS also invokes "routine news coverage" as a separate entity to WP:ROUTINE that is applicable to announcements, events, sports, or celebrities. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This, which describes Redinger as a "real star" and discusses the effect his transfer was expected to have on Penn State, this, which does the same and describes him as "one of the most promising young backs in the country", this, which garnered a top-of-the-page headline "DISSENSION WRECKS GRID TEAM" (although TBF the actual article is shorter than one might expect given the title's prominence), and this, which goes into further detail about the aforementioned incident and its consequences. I guess this might qualify as well, although it's just a report on his performance in training camp. Hatman31 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A routine transfer report (literally: a report in the newspaper about the transfer of personnel) that calls one of the people 'a real star' is still a routine transfer report. Similarly, a routine game report (literally: a report in a newspaper about what happened during a game) is still a routine game report even if it praises one of the players. The one about dissension at the team is, I'll grant, not a routine transfer or game report. However, it only briefly mentions the subject and provides no biographical detail. If those are four most in-depth sources we have, it doesn't change my mind. Levivich (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruel_Redinger&oldid=1137288002"