Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry P. Gamble

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 no consensus. This is leaning towards Keep but there is some clear doubts about the quantity and quality of sources available. I suggest further research take place to determine if this particular Harry Gamble has the required level of coverage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry P. Gamble

[edit]
Harry P. Gamble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. Induction into local or university halls of fame doesn't show notability nor does being named all-conference. The only coverage is of these events or a passing mention about his quarterback and law partner. Doesn't meet GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH. Mdtemp (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources found to identify notability, looks like he got coverage only in his local areas like university. Fails WP:GNG --A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the page. He seems quite the versatile athlete if nothing more. Hope that helps. Cake (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added declaration of !vote for User:MisterCake that apparently was inadvertently missed (based on comment above). Did I get it wrong?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought he'd have voted if he wanted to. I viewed this as a simple statement not a vote.Mdtemp (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:MisterCake can unstrike it himself if that is his intent - it looked like a simple comment to me also and we should not be attributing votes to people unless it is very very clear.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, that's fair.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep that's a full-length feature article in the St. Petersburg Times--A Florida newspaper about a student athlete in New Orleans -- in 1926. It would be hard to believe this was the only mention of his college career in the media of the day so it's reasonable to extrapolate that other offline sources would exist. I'm calling this a pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being "the only married varsity captain in major football" does not grant automatic notability. The article spends more time listing all of the previous year's results from an unbeaten team (when Gamble was not captain) than it spends on Gamble. FWIW, the team won 3 of 9 games with him as captain. I'm sure there was more times with him mentioned, but they were probably routine sports coverage. Note that one of the article's sources was a comment by him when he was 12 about a college football player he was a fan of. Not significant enough coverage to claim he meets GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course being the only married varsity captain in major football does not grant automatic notability. However, a feature article about that topic can certainly pass muster. It's the press coverage that speaks to notability, not any editor's belief on the importance of that subject contained in the press.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"FWIW, the team won 3 of 9 games with him as captain." That's true, but note the SoCon champ '25 team lost Lester Lautenschlaeger, Irish Levy, and Peggy Flournoy. I also believe Tulane built a new stadium in '26. Cake (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would question the significance of that article and definitely dispute that it's enough to meet GNG. Saying there must have been other articles is not convincing (or proof).Mdtemp (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Question the significance" sounds an awful lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason to delete. However, the other points do have merit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it actually means I'm not sure that it qualifies as significant coverage--though I know you believe it does. I have nothing against this person, but even if you're right about that article it's not enough to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is significant--feature article, big photo, major newspaper outside local area... all these point to the article itself being significant coverage. I think (asking) you are saying that the content of the article is the question.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article contains some significant, non-routine coverage, especially the feature from the Florida newspaper. In addition, a search of the archives of the New Orleans Times-Picayune reveals extensive coverage, including non-routine articles focusing on him. A subscription is required but a basic search can be done here. All in all, enough to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cbl62: It would be helpful if you could provide PDF downloads or cut-an-paste text with citations of those Times-Picayune articles to Cake. The article, as it presently exists, is light on independent coverage, and I suspect there are significant gaps in the biographical content that might be filled by those Times-Picayune articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't pay for the subscription. I merely scanned the headlines and blurbs and saw that there appeared to be extensive coverage, as noted above. Cbl62 (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I bought a one-day subscription to the Times-Picayune archive. There was quite a bit of coverage of Gamble; here are some of the articles: (1) "Gamble Is Elected Captain of Tulane," Dec. 19, 1925, (2) "Harry Gamble Will Coach Football at Warren Easton", Dec. 21, 1926, (3) "Winn Parish Proud of Harry Gamble and 'Hoss' Talbot," Dec. 22, 1925, (4) "Tulane's Been Taking Gambles at End for Two Generations," Nov. 22, 1960. Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep - I base my judgment call in this AfD on Cbl62's research cited above. As the article presently exists, there is not sufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to support a finding of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I am mindful that the subject was an All-Southern selection (akin to an All-American in 1926), and I take it on faith in Cbl62's research (based on my past experience with Cbl) that such behind-paywall sources will provide the additional independent sources to satisfy GNG. Let's try to get those sources into the article, please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this argument particularly convincing. Keeping the article because you've worked with an editor and think he'll be able to find sources doesn't seem like a valid reason. I do agree that any sources found need to be added to the article. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the other one - the Lafayette and Eagles coach. See here. Due to his father, were he to pen a book it's likely you'd find "Jr" on it. Cake (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll strike to help avoid confusion (if that's possible at this point)--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I had to vote right now, I'd vote to delete because I don't see the coverage required to meet GNG or the accomplishments needed to meet any of the athletic notability criteria. Part of the problem is in sorting out this person's achievements from other Harry P. Gambles in New Orleans. For example, I found a passing mention for Harry P. Gamble IV in an early 1970s edition of the local paper (which means there are several generations of related people named Harry P. Gamble as well as probably others with the same name). I also found lots of passing mentions in the local paper of Harry P. Gamble, attorney, appearing in court for various cases (but nothing significant). I don't think those proposing the article be kept have met the burden of proof requirement--or been able to clearly identify notable achievements or coverage of this particular Harry P. Gamble. I haven't voted yet because I'm hoping someone will be able to provide some significant support for keeping the article. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question First of all, I am not an expert on this era of college football, at all. But, the inbox for this guy states that he was an All-Southern selection in 1926. Based on this prior discussion, it appears that during the era this guy played, being an All-Southern selection was the historical equivalent of being named an All-American. If that's true, wouldn't that then qualify to meet WP:NCOLLATH? Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • EJ, I've been one of the defenders of keeping the articles regarding the composite All-Southern selections, but I am not prepared to say that individual All-Southern players were the equivalent of All-American players and confer automatic notability on them. Some individual All-Southern selections were often made by relatively minor Southern newspapers, just as today we have relatively minor All-American selectors that we are unable to say confer automatic notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say dirtlawyer's points are very level-headed. I note that All-Southern means more in say 1902 than in 1926, though it's still (roughly) an equivalent of All-American in '26. It depends on the newspaper for sure, and Tulane players in particular would sometimes get selection only from the Louisiana newspapers. However, Gamble getting 7 all-southern votes means there's no way he had only his local writers' support. Cake (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stifle: No notice of this AfD discussion has been posted on the talk page of WP:CFB, although neutrally worded AfD notices often are posted there and are perfectly acceptable under WP:CANVASS. Furthermore, WP:CFB members are just as likely or even more likely to vote "delete" for marginally notable/non-notable players and other CFB-related topics; we don't "gang up" to save non-notable CFB-related topics. If you believe otherwise, I urge you to review some of the other recent CFB-related AfD discussions (see, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football, or many other recent AfDs listed here: [1]). Please AGF and strike your comment above regarding "keep" voters, WP:CFB and canvassing; as an administrator, you know that unsupported accusations of misconduct are problematic. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (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/Harry_P._Gamble&oldid=1069518779"