Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brody Buck

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 delete. Consensus seems to be to delete this article, with several editors questioning the significance of the sources provided in the discussion. Draftifying was considered, but the article is only four sentences long and can be easily recreated if the subject becomes notable in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Buck

Brody Buck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not drafted to NFL, is on roster of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, found SIGCOV here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Those two are local papers covering his college team and his highshcool team. If such local coverage were significant, then nearly every college player in the states would be notable. Significant coverage requires non-local coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • • NO, locality of coverage is 100% irrelevant. Being local does NOT discount it from being significant. And your statement of "If such local coverage were significant, then nearly every college player in the states would be notable" is false; very few college players (usually the best of the best) ever get coverage to pass GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Maryville Forum profiled seven Bearcat "super seniors" in a series ("Over the course of seven weeks, the Maryville Forum will highlight the seven ‘super seniors’ for Bearcat football who returned for an additional season despite already earning their undergraduate degrees"), hardly selective coverage. This includes coverage of the likes of Alec Tatum, walk on Bailey Pickering. This kind of local coverage is not significant.--Mvqr (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh, I'll go with an extremely weak keep, as NBIO says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and I found two pieces (multiple) that appear to be SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm unsure about the standing of the USFL and I'd like to see some more coverage. I'll watch and see what happens. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NGRIDIRON for the status of the USFL. Jacona (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That applies to the old USFL of the 1980's, which received a higher level of coverage and had a higher level of competition as they were undercutting the NFL by allowing college prospects to play professionally earlier. The new USFL has yet to meet the NGRIDIRON standard and even if it did Buck has yet to play in a USFL game. GPL93 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. I think that's the best option for now. We get borderline cases but this one is right on the line. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just because the local paper decides to provide coverage of all 7 people who have a degree but are still playing football for the local college does not mean all 7 of those people are notable, and nothing else shows notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wasn't able to dig up much but I did find this. I think the sources from BeanieFan barely pass the GNG line. Playing professionally helps, though it is not a determination. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quick mention in a game report (so not really even about Buck) in Northwest Missouri State's student newspaper. I don't really see how that could be notability-lending. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG and the new USFL isn't likely to have enough coverage to lend itself towards presumed notability, at least in the beginning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support draftify-ing the article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I wouldn't because I don't think that the chances Buck becoming notable are high. The new USFL probably wouldn't merit an NGRIDIRON pass even if that was still a strong SNG and the fact that all teams are operating and playing in Birmingham, Alabama instead of in their home cities means that coverage from their media markets will likely not be as high. GPL93 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 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.