Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Replogle

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 speedy keep - nominator has been blocked for raising bum AfD discussions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Replogle

[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)

Replogle has never even been part of a regular NFL team. He has been on various practice squads and been cut from rosters before the start of the season, but never even been on the regular roster during a regular season game, let alone played in one. Clear failure of the notability guidelines for football players which are already ridiculously low John Pack Lambert (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @Johnpacklambert: Did you comply with WP:BEFORE to determine whether there is sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG? Cbl62 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, virtually all the coverage I find is of a totally different Adam Replogle who is a professional surfer. So yes, there is nothing near GNG level coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about this national coverage from CBS Sports? Cbl62 (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have the inclusion standards for football players because such hype articles are so common. We should not make an exception for such hype articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feature stories in national publications such as CBS Sports are not "common" at all. In my experience, less than one percent of college players receive such coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG overrides the specific notability guidelines. If someone has sufficient coverage, it does matter if they do not meet any particular specific notability guideline. Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG through feature stories found and those listed in the article. Top 25 player at IU over the last 25 years certainly shows WP:IMPACT and thus supports notability as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Seems like another WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:POINT nomination from this user. Given he has a history of these dating back quite some time, might be time to escalate this. Smartyllama (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created by JPL in violation of his Topic ban, for which he has since been blocked. I suggest a speedy keep rather than a regular keep in light of this new information. Smartyllama (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Yet another bad/POINTY/no WP:BEFORE sports-related AfD nomination from this particular user. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the best way of looking NSPORTD to be as a restriction of the GNG,,for the purpose or eliminating encyclopedic coverage of those who receive only publicity, but not accomplishments. What countsas accomplishments in each field is subject o discussion ,but I think the interested people here consider it to consist of playin in professional football, not college football, which seems reasonable enough. In exceptional cases, The GNG can be used as a reason to over-ride this , and I'd probably accept multiple sources celebrating his has the best play in IU's 25 year history, not just one of the 25 best. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply wrong. In adopting WP:NSPORT, we were explicit that it was to be an inclusionary standard, not an exclusionary one. This is also set forth explicitly in the introduction: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline..." Accordingly, it is sufficient that the subject pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well my view is not consensus. I am raising the the possibility of changing it by gauging sentiment. DGG ( talk ) 06

14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment if you want to re-write WP:NSPORT then the place to do that is at WP:NSPORT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2019 (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.