Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1954 Bowman Football Card Set

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1954 Bowman Football Card Set[edit]

[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)

Prod was disputed by creator; zero reliable sources to demonstrate how these meet general notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and American football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction was that it would all fall under WP:OR, and based on the article it is easy to see how anyone would presume that, and admittedly a lot of basic web searches directed me to collector/auction sites. But then I did a search in Google Books that returned an impressive batch of sources that appear to be third party about the history and business of sports card collecting. I have to be straight-up: now I'm not so sure. Notability isn't what I think it is... it's what reliable sources think it is. There's some reliable sources to plow through and I hope the community teams up to get this done. It could still go either way in my book.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't doubt the general notability of Bowman Gum, but even looking through some of those book results (one of the first entries being a self-published book), I'm not seeing significant coverage of this particular set. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it had rookie card George Blanda, but I am not educated on what is important enough to be an article with card sets, so take this with a grain of salt. Sportsfangnome (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the creator. I am pretty sure I can add info to this despite creating it. I would obviously like to keep it, but not just because I created it, but also because I believe this set is very notable. The 1954 Bowman Football set features tons of important cards - especially George Blanda's RC. I added the price guides because of the fact that there is information inside the price guides as they have a short summary or description of the set. Also, I know there are a lot of other good sources. The problem is, this was my first article, & I was not so good at citing. I will be finding more reliable sources soon. I am happy with one of the above comments saying that there is a good amount of sources on Google Books... I will soon be looking through that as well. I am fairly new & still getting the hang of it, so I will be fixing it. One more thing, I would like to point out that most of the players in these sets have their own Wikipedia articles, & some even have pictures of them on the 1954 cards. So, I think that could be a good reason. Just adding some perspective, however. Ulysses Grant Official (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I just added two references, & none of them are just simple price guides. I am hoping this is fine, but I can find more sources if it is needed. Ulysses Grant Official (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, I say Keep. There are two pieces of coverage that cover the topic "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (SIGCOV) which means the 1954 Bowman Football Card Set passes the general notability guideline with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." For the two pieces of SIGCOV, see 1954 Bowman Football Set Offered Unique Design from Sports Collectors Daily and The 1954 Bowman Football Set, Where's Johnny? from PSA Magazine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, Keep is my position on this one from a pure notability standpoint. I want to note that my position in this discussion does not mean we should automatically approve notability for similar collections and years.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the 1954 Bowman football set is notable based on two profiles in card-collecting publications, then the same notability analysis would also extend to hundreds of baseball, football, hockey and basketball card sets over the last 100-plus years. Up to now, we haven't had such articles. I'm not sure if the proliferation of such articles is good for the encyclopedia. Maybe it's ok, just not sure. Cbl62 (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There may indeed need to be a "greater discussion" down the road.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2022 (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.