Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Fields

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Fields

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

Non-notable American football player who does not meet gridiron football notability. There is no indication that he played in the National Football League or any other first-tier league. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ a quick review of online sources yields very little and not really enough to surpass WP:GNG in my view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some sources that appear to reflect significant coverage: here,here,here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the four articles cited above, there is coverage in ESPN.com (e.g., here), USA Today (here), Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (here plus a dozen more available for pay on newslibrary.com), more from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (here,here, and here), and lots of articles from his hometown paper the Uniontown Herald-Standard which are available for pay on newslibrary.com. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. News coverage found by Cbl62 is all from the same publication, which would indicate that his notability is only local. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it points to local only... but such feature articles also could point toward further coverage in other sources that have yet to be found. My initial review didn't turn these (an admitted "quick review" so that's not suprising). The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a weekly circulation of 170,000+ and a Sunday circulation of 310,000+. Hardly a "local" paper. Further, these are not "sports blogs" but apparently the company spent money on actual ink and paper to publish. I'm ready to go ~~Neutral~~ for now and would like to see more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too many delete voters have not taken the time to check for sources. Fields is a clear WP:GNG pass with abundant significant coverage in multiple reliable news sources, including major metropolitan dailies such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review as well as national sources such as ESPN.com and USA Today. This is in addition to a whole lot of local coverage in his local hometown newspaper The Herald-Standard. I suggest this be re-listed to allow folks to review newly-found sources. Cbl62 (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Keep--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's WP:MILL coverage of many college football players that don't have articles. WP:NGRIDIRON should be the standard. There's no claim that he meets that, and no claim of unusual notability compared to other college football players. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Response but WP:NGRIDIRON is not the standard, it's one of several guidelines--another being WP:GNG. NGRIDIRON is "inclusionary" not "exclusionary", meaning that there are several paths to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're incorrect as to both the spirit of WP:GNG and how it's generally applied at AfD. It is well-acknowledged that topics covered in local news will sometimes not meet GNG. Local news coverage is almost all that we have here. The national coverage appears to be entirely related to his dismissal from the Pitt team, which can't contribute to his notability as a football player, and likely falls under WP:BLP1E. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While small-town newspapers count least in a GNG assessment and national outlets count most, major metropolitan dailies like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette get significant weight as well. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is the oldest big city newspaper in the USA (publishing since 1786) and has received six Pulitzer Prizes since 1938 -- this is not some barely-significant, small-town newspaper. Cbl62 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cbl62, and would add that even if all significant coverage came from his dismissal from the team (which I don't believe to be true), that would still qualify based on WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per above. That's sufficient regardless of the subject-specific guidelines. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Some decent coverage by reliable sources. Scrapes past WP:GNG. Jdcomix (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62 and WikiOriginal-9's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2017 (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.