Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Tolleson

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. I'm tempted to relist, but that's been done too many times. Essentially, there is a split opinion on whether the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Tolleson

[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)

I'm submitting on behalf of an OTRS request, several years after mooted on the Talk Page. It's primarily based on WP:BIODELETE, based on either then or now relatively unknown. They also think they aren't generally notable.

I'm not placing a personal viewpoint, though the above should be counted as a participation, I believe. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @FourViolas, Worm That Turned, and Nyttend: as those who originally participated. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject is notable per WP:NFOOTBALL because he made 30+ professional appearances in the USL First Division with Carolina RailHawks, confirmed by this. Giant Snowman 12:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional career meets SNG and with thirty matches there must be enough coverage out there for the GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak keep - ~~Comprehensive failure of WP:GNG~~ - Raleigh News & Observer has articles online dating back to 2009, but a search for Jeremy Tolleson produces zero hits. The Cary News doesn't have articles that old online, but Google searches bring up only routine coverage (plus a random blogpost I added to the article and a retirement announcement - which is quite routine in its own right). There is long-standing consensus that narrowly passing (one season is more than what we typically consider, but it's at a very low level of professionalism - arguably not a fully-pro league) the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL shouldn't hold when the article cannot satisfy the GNG. However, as noted below, there are 2 Indy Week articles that have enough coverage between them that I think we can conclude the GNG could be met. Jogurney (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefails GNG. If he passes the football notability that is clearly failed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not really seeing support for GNG, in fact efforts by delete voters seem to indicate sources aren't present. Relisting for now but will delete if no sources satisfying GNG are presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just by a quick Google, I found several sources including [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. There are probably others in print sources if someone wants to look. Any of those would be enough to pass GNG, and there are eight, plus probably more I didn't find. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize Indy Week was a reliable source, but it is. While none of the articles linked above constitute significant coverage in reliable sources (and some are not from RS), I think #1 and #8 together can get us across the GNG line. I'll revise my !vote accordingly. Jogurney (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't think the source GS posted [9] is an RS; no evidence of any editorial oversight, and it looks very blog-ish to me. Of the 8 sources Smartyllama posted, six are from Indy Week (which covers the local Raleigh, North Carolina market). The other two [10] [11] are game reports that have one mention of the player each, so definitely not GNG. Of the six Indy Week sources, I agree with Jogurney that the first and the eighth are the two best (the others are brief mentions). However, they're both written by the same author and published by the same publisher–I don't believe they satisfy the "multiple sources" criteria–this is one source writing about the player twice. And, the eighth source is derivative of a team announcement and quotes the announcement verbatim–almost all of the content about the player comes from the announcement. This is not independent per WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:BASIC; it's derivative of the team announcement, and so the eighth source doesn't satisfy GNG. What's left is the first IndyWeek source, which is basically one author writing one piece for a local weekly online magazine about a player's retirement, and even then, it's not very in-depth. I'm not finding anything searching online, either. I don't see a GNG pass here, or other evidence of notability. – Levivich 04:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Started looking online, and found some older articles referencing him playing in college, and even in high school as well. It's a pretty Wikilawyered argument the net sum of all these sources doesn't meet GNG, despite NFOOTBALL being met. Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Nfitz: claims to have found older articles about the subject's HS and college career, so one more week is needed to assess them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 22:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on sources found and linked by above commenters, this appears to pass WP:GNG, and with it, WP:NFOOTBALL. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Glad for the relist. Concerning the "net sum" of sources, six Indy Week sources, along with 3 on the article, count as one towards notability as do the two by the same editor, so the statement "...there are 2 Indy Week articles that have enough coverage between them that I think we can conclude the GNG could be met" does not take this into account. I am having some possible browser issues as I couldn't get the cciw.org source to load and the sportsengine.com source came back with "Error: Page Not Found". The three Indy Week loaded fine but the triangledowntowner.com returned "That page seems to be missing or the link was mistyped. Please try again.", and I don't think anyone else mentioned having these issues. Of the eight sources provided above (aside from the 6 Indy Week), wralsportsfan.com has two passing mentions, "...because the backline of Jeremy Tolleson, Devon McKenney, Brad Rusin and John Gilkerson hadn’t played together yet this season.", and the subjects name mentioned under "LINEUPS" and "CAUTIONS". The spokesman.com source simply states "Rigby opened the scoring in the 29th minute on a pass from Jeremy Tolleson.", which may be great for content but "WP:Grasping at straws" to advance notability. I need to check to make sure I am not having site loading issues but also to see where these "other sources" are because a presumption of notability must still be supported by sources. "30+ professional appearances" does not advance notability automatically or inherently but I do think there should be sources out there. As a BLP the sourcing is supposedly held to a higher standard and that is currently severely lacking. Otr500 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 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.