Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Zuzzio

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. Closing this a little early to tidy up. Community consensus here, and on WP:ATH in general, is clear, and there's no reason to hold this open for another day for the sake of bureaucracy. If the nominator is interested in continuing the discussion on the associated notability guideline to see if consensus might change, this is not the best venue for that discussion (perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) instead). Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Zuzzio[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not notable per WP:ATH. Only independent reference is an obit. Karl.brown (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep meets WP:NGRIDIRON having played professionally.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Reliable sources on the article indicate he played in 2 games in the National Football League, which means he passes the notability criteria for American football players. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criteria is unclear. For example, at the top of WP:ATH, it states the following: "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline WP:GNG. This guideline provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". So does a football player need verifiable, multiple sources in addition to having played 1 game, or is 1 game sufficient? From the talk page on WP:ATH, it doesn't seem like there is consensus on this issue yet. The way I read WP:ATH, you had to meet both, but it could be interpreted the other way.--Karl.brown (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there is a reliable reference that the athlete meets their sports guidelines, he satisfies WP:ATH... It's the bold text. There has been consensus on this for several years. Bgwhite (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, I have now read over WP:ATH several times, and have read deeper into the talk page history, which is quite complex. I think it is fair to say from the talk page, that there is some discussion as to whether WP:GNG is necessary immediately, later, or never. Nonetheless, there seems to be a notion that sports-specific guidelines (these are only guidelines) are intended as temporary indicators of notability, with the idea that sources to fulfill WP:GNG would likely be found in the future. (see this language: "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" (e.g. WP:GNG). So my question is, since internet searches I've (and presumably others) have done have yet to unearth more material, if we go to paper/library/physical books, do the editors who propose 'keep' on this article believe that additional, independent, and non-trivial sources will be found on Mr. Zuzzio, given that he played 2 games in 1942? There are a few sources here, but the mentions are all trivial: http://www.google.com/search?q=anthony-zuzzio+lions&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers There is unfortunately a bit of recency-bias with modern professional sports, in that anyone who plays in a pro-team in 2012 is likely to be covered in many sources, but is the same true for players from 1942? While I appreciate the other editors arguing per WP:NGRIDIRON, I would simply reply that this is a guideline, and I suppose I am now arguing for an exception to this guideline given no evidence of WP:GNG now or likely forthcoming. Nonetheless, if we want to put this AfD on hold for a few months while sources are searched that's another reasonable path.--Karl.brown (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON Bgwhite (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with caveat. Yes, Zuzzio played in two NFL games for the Detroit Lions during the 1942 season, and, yes, he is entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. In the past, I have often questioned the notability of these "one appearance wonders" like Zuzzio. While he clearly qualifies for the presumption of notability under WP:NGRIDIRON, I think this goes a long to pointing out the flaws of that presumption as currently phrased. Zuzzio appeared in two games, started neither of them, compiled no meaningful statistics, and played for an 0–11 Lions team whose talent was depleted by the wartime service of most of its best players. In the absence of a notable college sports career or some other meaningful contribution to history, what exactly about this gentleman is "encyclopedic?" Frankly, the rookie editor raises some very salient points above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to his NFL career, he appears to have had a significant college football career. There are multiple New York Times articles mentioning him in coverage of Muhlenberg games. Also, some sources indicate that he was an All-American in college. See, e.g., this and this. When considering athletes from this era, it is important to bear in mind that many sources are not available on-line. For example, neither of the major Detroit newspapers are available on-line for 1942. Cbl62 (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow-blaster I've always heard that it is not the number of votes nor the amount of snow, but the strength of the argument that counts, so even though it appears that consensus is against deletion, I will make one final plea. :) While the additional research recently added to this article is admirable (census records of the father! wow), and shows the skills of Wikipedia researchers, I am still left pondering, "why?" (it reminds me of Shakespeare: "but a walking shadow, a poor player; That struts and frets his hour upon the stage; And then is heard no more: it is a tale; Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." :) As for the New York Times articles that mention him, as far as I can tell, that's exactly what they do: mention him. Zuzzio blocked a kick. Zuzzio was on the field. etc. Forgive me for being a rookie editor, but does that qualify as 'significant' (vs WP:ROUTINE) coverage? As for 'All American': as you can see here, there is not a single 'All-American' award, there are numerous All-American teams voted by various bodies (and I can't find Zuzzio on what seems to be the 'main' All-American award: [1]). So while I'm sure being elected to one of the many All-American teams, and getting chosen to play pro-ball, is not insignificant, is it encyclopedic, and was there something about his pro career and the 2 games he played that was worthy of note? I'm sure Mr. Zuzzio was a lovely person, and he served his country and his community. But I just hope when voting on this AfD, other editors will take into account that WP:ATH is a guideline, and we have the duty to exercise judgement and not automatically grant notability because this guy played in a few games. I concede that he does have a 'presumption' of notability because he played 2 games and WP:NGRIDIRON gives him that presumption. But before we translate that presumption into reality, please consider whether you believe Zuzzio will *ever* qualify under WP:GNG. Finally, if this article passes deletion review, I would be interested in how other editors would feel if I renominate this article in 6-12 months time, if additional significant sources have not come to light by then. It's an interesting test case for WP:ATH - does presumption of notability really translate into actual notability? And if so, how much time is needed? I don't need to point you to the thousands of untouched and unsourced soccer biographies to illustrate that Zuzzio is just a single case of a larger problem... --Karl.brown (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like he's passed WP:GNG already.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, based on what? In the newspaper articles linked in the article, with the exception of obits, his name was only mentioned in passing.--Karl.brown (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was a sufficiently notable person that, when he died, his life story was covered in the Associated Press and newspapers in Kansas and Pennsylvania. And his role in football games was sufficiently notable that he is directly mentioned (in varying degrees of detail) in over 40 articles in The New York Times -- the most important newspaper in the United States. And that's just what has been found on-line -- less than a week after the article was created. (The article was nominated for deletion 39 minutes after it was created.) His professional career was in Detroit, and as noted above, the Detroit newspapers are not accessible on-line from this time period. He clearly passes WP:ATH and, IMO, there's enough already to satisfy WP:GNG as well. Time to let go of this one and move on. Cbl62 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2012 (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.