Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Looney (offensive lineman)

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. Wizardman 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Looney (offensive lineman)

[edit]
Joe Looney (offensive lineman) (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)

Subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Deadbeef (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. In the news search, there appear to be two such players of the same name, this player and one from the Colts in 1964. It will take some time to sift through it all. But some looks promising, such as NFL Draft 2012: Jim Harbaugh Comments On Picks Joe Looney, Darius Fleming and NFL draft preview: Guards ranks him the #9 pick at guard. We'd probably be better off to just wait and see what happens because it should become clear soon.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still not convinced either way. The sources found appear to not be on the level of notability that would be expected from a more notable player. The coverage doesn't seem to be quite as widespread. My suggestion is that it either closes as "keep" or "no consensus" for later review. I see no harm in waiting for next season in light of the prospects of the individual. College linemen don't generate a lot of press to begin with, so the fact that he got some probably means something. Plus there is something to be said for Specialist topics.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per obvious consensus on drafted NFL players still in non-practice squad rosters. Found this related to the subject in just the second link in Google, coverage is out there arguably, fourth round pick of last year draft, probably would play in 2013. If he gets cut and never plays a down of professional football, he still meets GNG. Clear cut WP:BEFORE situation. Secret account 04:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Secret, can you please refer me to the "obvious consensus on drafted NFL players still in non-practice squad rosters." The only specific notability guideline of which I'm aware is WP:NGRIDIRON, which requires the player to have actually played in a regular season professional game in certain leagues, including the NFL. I have struggled with whether we should delete NFL draftees before the start of the season, but that is exactly what has happened in the past. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was wondering about that, too. There have been lots of NFL drafted athletes that get cut before preseason and those articles typically get deleted in AFD unless there is some other compelling reason to keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete. Being on a pre-season NFL roster doesn't confer automatic notability. And my searches in Google news archive don't turn up much in the way of significant, non-trivial coverage on this Joe Looney (as opposed to the 1960s football player of the same name). There's this, but SB Nation appears to be a blog site, and I'm not sure whether or not it can be considered a reliable source. Even if it is reliable, I don't think that an isolated, one-paragraph write-up in a blog is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Looney may end up playing for the 49ers (in which case the article can be re-created), but he currently falls victim to the fact that dollegiate offensive linemen don't get a lot of press. Whether that's fair or unfair, it's the reality -- press coverage is what establishes notability for college football players under WP:GNG, and that coverage tends to be focused on the glamor positions like QB, RB, WR, CB etc. Absent more coverage than this, I don't think he passes muster. Willing to reconsider if additional coverage can be found. Cbl62 (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep in light of additional sources found by Arxiloxos and added to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see the upside for the encyclopedia in going out of our way to delete articles about drafted players who make the team's active roster, as he did in 2012. In any case, however, significant coverage exists and can be found with some digging. I've added some sources, Google results show plenty more. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If he was a first year professor at Harvard or Cambridge, he'd be deleted. Another example of a highly skewed notability criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2013 (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/Joe_Looney_(offensive_lineman)&oldid=1137951739"