Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Burns (American football)

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Burns (American football)[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)

Fails WP:GNG. He had 1 carry in the NFL for the Cincinnati Bengals in 1995, in which he rushed for a single yard. His college career does not appear to be notable either, having finished with a total of 987 scrimmage yards after 4 years. He does appear to own a gym now, but that's all I'm finding in terms of notability for him, and even that's a stretch. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, (1), this person played in the National Football League (recently, too! this isn't some one-gamer from 1920), the highest level of the sport there ever was, and meets NGRIDIRON. And (2) Burns easily meets GNG, for just a very brief search on Newspapers.com brings up SIGCOV such as [1] [2] [3] [4]. And if that's not enough, then consider me voting on IAR grounds, as I think deleting NFL player articles do not at all improve the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just of the opinion that 1 carry in the NFL shouldn't be enough to be considered notable. Perfectly fine if others don't agree with me but I appreciate your responses to my two nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's foolproof for "meaningful" notability, even in the present day. Though that's a subjective notion in itself. But it's pretty much a given for recent decades that if someone plays any detectable role in an NFL game, they'll get newspaper coverage, and even moreso more recently, web coverage in the "back pages" segments of reliable-source outlets. Will future generations thank us for collating this information as encyclopedic? I'm doubtful of that, but those are the standards we've set, so we should at least try to apply them consistently. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. The article cited above by Beanie are examples of such coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sportsballpages coverage seems legit, and his participation doesn't even seem to be nonsense plays in garbage time of a meaningless game either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep appears to pass muster. It's not just "one play" because he also played in college to get that one play in the NFL. Sure, it's a stub, but we should be careful--see Wikipedia:Do not confuse stub status with non-notability--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC, per all above, particularly Paulmcdonald's comment. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 5 April 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.