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. I have given apparently canvassed votes less weight, especially as they are arguing through the SNG rather than providing sources struck per arguments on my talk page. I wasn’t aware that delete votes had followed the same notification, which invalidates this comment, I feel on balance that the consensus was delete anyway as even those voting to keep acknowledge that sourcing isn’t here. There is are ongoing arguments about whether NSPORT wins over GNG but I rely on my earlier conclusion that language around GNG passing trumping NSPORT failure means that its clear when there is tension between the two which one wins. That is also consistent around many other discussions and conversations across the whole project. We can’t have a permissive rule in one area that doesn’t apply elsewhere. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Mungavin[edit]

Jock Mungavin (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)

Non-notable former professional American football player, after searching through 22 pages of newspapers.com I can find no WP:SIGCOV anywhere. Please, anyone feel free to expand. Here are the newspapers.com links: James Mungavin and even less for Jock Mungavin. No WP:SIGCOV from a quick Google search either. All sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage from a database. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Wisconsin. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Unclear if it's the same person, but there was a boxer in the 1920s called Jock Mungavin. See here, here. Probably not since the boxer was a featherweight? Cbl62 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, played several games in the National Football League (then APFA), and thus meets NGRIDIRON, which states players and head coaches are presumed notable if they: Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: ... the National Football League. And NSPORTS says in bold: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. That's an or. Considering this is an encyclopedia, and that every MLB, NBA, and NHL player also have an article, I believe those of the National Football League should as well per my previous points. I will also note that coverage from this period is extremely difficult to find, even if you do have Newspapers.com access (because it seems that website has trouble identifying results from the period in which Mungavin played), so I believe coverage likely does exist of him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Passes WP:NGRIDIRON with playing in the NFL. The argument about WP:ROUTINE does not apply because that applies to events and not people. I am not shocked that a football player from the 1920's didn't turn up in "a quick Google search" --Paul McDonald (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment BeanieFan11 has violated WP:CANVASS by posting a non-polite message to WP:WikiProject National Football League, and the audience of the NFL wikiproject is partisan as well. Has also failed to note here that the user made that notification. See here. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read in that page you pointed me to: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. I do not see how I "violated" it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see the WikiProject NFL is a partisan audience I can't help you very much. There is also a politeness requirement that you violated by writing "Ugh", see WP:CANVASS "Notifications must be polite". Hopefully that elucidates you. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote the notification to be more "polite." See [1]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no violation of Canvass. Placing a notice on project pages is specifically allowed. Further, WP:CANVASS is only a "behavioral guideline" and not a policy. BeanieFan, don't "ugh" like that and thanks for the re-write. Everyone now please move on.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BeanieFan11. WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply to biographies. NemesisAT (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON. Sources may be difficult to find for this time period, but given this player played in the NFL's first season, coverage exists somewhere. But again, NGRIDIRON is enough for this to stay. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 17:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NGRIDIRON. Not surprising that there is not many online sources for a 1920s football player, but it's likely they are out there. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources, and it doesn't follow that those are likely to exist offline either. Professional football did not receive the kind of media attention then than it does now, not that someone who played in three games in one season would receive much attention now either. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment. User:Mackensen has pretty much summed up my thoughts as well. I agree that WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply, but FAQ No. 2 of NSPORTS states that "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline." FAQ No. 4 says there's no fixed deadline to come up with WP:SIGCOV and that some leeway is warranted in granting adequate time to find sources for historic figures. But in this case, the article was created in 2009 -- giving us 13 years of leeway to find something. So far, I've yet to see anything that would come close to SIGCOV. Unless some SIGCOV is found, I don't see how we can support keeping a 13-year-old substub sourced only to comprehensive databases. I urge those advocating "Keep" to try to find something; my searches unfortunately did not come up with anything significant. Cbl62 (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Cbl62. I'm having a tough time understanding standards for inclusion as it pertains to NGRIDIRON or NSPORTS. Given that the database referenced in the article shows that this subject played in a few regular season NFL games, and meets NGRIDIRON, there still needs to be additional significant coverage? I understand that a lot of tension is built up around this issue so I don't mean to stir up the pot, I'm just having a tough time keeping up. I'm not asking to be condescending or anything, just so I know for future reference. Seems like I hear different opinions depending on the users preference. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 18:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's not 100% agreement on the point among football editors, but the FAQs are pretty clear that articles passing NSPORTS/NGRIDIRON must eventually provide sources showing GNG compliance. There is some grey area as to what "eventually" means, but in this case I think it's hard to argue that 13 years is not enough time. Cbl62 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It's gotten dizzying trying to follow the discussion but this is helpful. Thanks! SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 19:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:IAR which states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I personally believe that getting rid of an NFL player article is the opposite of improving WP, and so I base my "keep" position partly on that guideline. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The deepest coverage I've found so far is a 1916 article (here) when Mungavin was a freshman. It says: "Mungavin is going to give all the ends a fight. He is a crack tackler and fast." Game accounts are available for the 1920 Chicago Tigers, but I don't find anything discussing Mungavin's contributions. Just a roster listing here and a passing reference here ("Mungavin ot Wisconsin will be at end.") Cbl62 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mackensen and supported by the comments by Cbl62. There is a lack of significant coverage within available sources to meet our WP:GNG. I will stress again, that our sports notability guidelines are more applicable to today's NFL, where there is significant coverage of all NFL players to warrant a general inclusion criteria. But the 1920s NFL was a different landscape, one where it played second fiddle to college football. "Pro" football was a second job and the coverage was notably lacking, especially when looking at a wider net then local newspapers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mackensen and Cbl62. I looked for additional sources myself, and specifically tried to find coverage of Mungavin's time playing for Wisconsin, since players who only played a handful of NFL games often had more notable college careers. I didn't find anything more significant than the one two-sentence piece Cbl62 found - there are a few articles like this and this that at least mention he played for the team, but those don't even give him a full sentence. And it's worth noting that the Wisconsin State Journal and the Chicago Tribune, the local newspapers most likely to cover his college and pro careers respectively, both have full archives on Newspapers.com, so this isn't a case where he's likely to have more coverage in newspapers we don't have access to. We can't write an article if we don't have any coverage to base that article off of in the first place. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication that GNG is met, and per NSPORTS passing NGRIDIRON is not sufficient - GNG must be met. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only one quibble ... GNG must be met "eventually" ... and this one has had 13 years. Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its existed 13 years. No, users have not spent that long trying to find sources. In fact, its only been one day. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but (a) it's really stretching the bounds of reason to say that an article can remain a sub-stub for 13 years and still not qualify for deletion under the "eventually" clause, and (b) we have now had several capable researchers (including you, me and TheCatalyst31) scour Newspapers.com (including newspapers in Chicago and Madison, WI) and come up empty. I don't like deleting NFL players, but we have to either play by the guidelines as they're written or try to change them. Cbl62 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you change your mind about deleting the article if I expanded the page and/or found SIGCOV? For I can do both... eventually :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove they are notable through SIGCOV, I would change my mind. BilledMammal (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I share BilledMammal's position. Given significant coverage, I would reconsider. I simply doubt whether such coverage exists. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 22 February 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.