Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cowne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was withdrawn, sources found, article expanded. --B (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Cowne

John Cowne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

(Contested prod) This person was a reserve longsnapper/center for the Washington Redskins for a grand total of THREE GAMES during ONE SEASON twenty years ago. He is now a teacher and the assistant coach of a high school JV football team. There is no hope of ever having an article that is more than a stub about him - the only sources that exist are lists that list every single pro football player ever. The only thing this article has received since it was created was some pretty vicious vandalism. If we cannot create an article that is more than two sentences stating he exists (and we can't and never will be able to) then there is no need to have it. --B (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - He played in the NFL, therefore he is notable per WP:BIO. matt91486 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, if you're concerned about recurring vandalism, perhaps try WP:Protect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please add the information you found about the details of his NFL career. It seems to be missing from the article. Pburka (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This guy was in the NFL, played for the Redskins. Is notable. The article should be expanded, not deleted. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem is, it can't be expanded. It will never be more than a few sentences because there is nothing else to say. He played three games as an emergency center. If he were a skill position (WR, QB, RB, TE) or a defensive player, we might be able to add a paragraph summarizing statistics, but that isn't even available. --B (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Professional athletes who have played at least one game at their sport's highest level are generally considered notable. The vandalism is unfortunate, but it's no reason to delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Generally, yes. But the general notability guideline specifies that a subject needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources. But there is only trivial coverage in this case - all we know is that he is included in lists of all football players. WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event is key here - the fact that he existed, was a center, and his other general roster information should be included in an article about the 1987 Washington Redskins (which doesn't exist yet, but should). There is no good reason to have a separate article about individuals on whom there is no information available for writing an article. --B (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep would recommend going to WP:RFPP for persistent vandalism, since he made it to the NFL be it three games or not, passes WP:BIO setting a benchmark for how many games a professional national televised athlete must play in would be a matter of changing Wikipedia:BIO#Additional_criteria notability guidelines which would have to be brought up there and agreed upon, which if it was I believe would be a mistake.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you explain what purpose it serves to have an article that will never be expanded beyond a few sentences? That's the whole point behind the general notability guideline - if there is enough to write an article, we write it, if there isn't, we don't. --B (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see why you don't think it can be expanded. The details of what happened in his NFL career can be added, like the circumstances of why he was signed in the first place. As can highlights of his college career. This won't be that easy to find, newspapers from the early 80s aren't easy to find online, but if you check the DC papers from that time period, there will be a mention of transactions involving him. NFL players meet notability, period. Every one should, and inevitably (hopefully) will have an article on Wikipedia. matt91486 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
        • He was the longsnapper for the Virginia Tech Hokies. In 1987, nobody cared about football at Tech. We were a pretty good basketball school that had been a fixture in the NCAAs under Charles Moir and actually knocked off #1 Memphis State in the 87-88 season under our new coach, but football was that thing you do while waiting for basketball season to start. The Roanoke Times sports editor, Bill Brill, hated Virginia Tech. Newspapers in other parts rarely acknowledged that Tech existed. I seriously doubt anyone was profiling our longsnapper. --B (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to keep the article and use protection, which hasn't even been tried yet, to deal with vandalism. It's also very presumptuous to say the only possible sources are lists compiling data about pro football players, or that there's nothing else to be said about him. He also apparently played, likely for four years, at a major university, and I'd expect at least some source material exists about his career there. For that matter, if he played for only three games in 1987, it sounds like he was one of the replacement players during the NFLPA strike that year. If so, why isn't this important fact mentioned in the article? (There was even a movie vaguely inspired by the Redskins replacement players, that has to be worth at least a "see also".) --Michael Snow (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If someone can find a reliable source saying that he was a replacement player during the strike, by all means add it. --B (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per recent consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete). As for the WP:BIO concerns, while in the current wording, it meets WP:BIO, but fails the sourcing part that is needed for meeting the policy. The only sources found is that he exists and played three games 20 years ago. I checked the Washington Times archives, which only had one very, very trivial mention that he signed a contract in August along with a bunch of other players (which seems to me he wasn't a replacement player), as the strike was later on in the football season. Fails WP:N and WP:RS, and the sourcing part of WP:BIO. Secret account 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, if he signed a contract in August that probably just means he was in training camp with the team originally, but was cut before the season, then brought back again when the strike happened. A lot of the replacement players were guys like that who hadn't made it, so this was their only opportunity. --Michael Snow (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It was August 28 Secret account 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I find it misleading to say that the James Barker debate produced a consensus, let alone that any consensus from that could be applicable here. For one, you're talking about amateur athletes as opposed to professional athletes, which is a completely different situation. matt91486 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Create an article about the 1987 strike and include this guy's details there (the relevant content, that is), then redirect this. violet/riga (t) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • A list of replacement players of the 1987 strike would be a good idea, as most of these athletes won't have the proper sourcing for an indiviual article. Secret account 18:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know how badly we need articles like this, but once we have them, we shouldn't delete them. It's a long-standing consensus that a short career in professional leagues justifies a Wikipedia article. There are plenty of entries in Category:American football long snappers. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That doesn't help the sourcing issue though. See WP:CCC, anyways most of the long snappers in that category played years and full articles can be created on them Secret account 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • We also have Category:1990 births, but that doesn't mean that everyone born in 1990 is notable. --B (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Shalom. Additionally, as people have stated here, having information on practically everything under the sun is what makes Wikipedia great; if the available information is only enough for a stub, that's fine. Cerebellum (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sources - here, here, and here provide more evidence. The third source could perhaps be questioned, but it seems to be a newspaper columnists' beat report or whatnot, so I think it's sufficiently notable. matt91486 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my bad, the Roanoke article already got put in. matt91486 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The Roanoke article, that's an opinion, not a reliable source, as for the other two sources, it proves that the player exists and played and that's it. Secret account 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The Roanoke article's content is opinion based, but it helps to verify his playing at Virginia Tech. As for proving the player exists, isn't that the point? I hardly think it hurts to leave the article as a stub when it so clearly meets the most basic requirements of WP:BIO and also clearly meets the additional requirements of who have competed in a fully professional league. Anyway, if you want a more reliable source, perhaps the Virginia Tech campus newspaper accounts might be helpful. If, as the account in the Roanoke article alleges, Cowne did carry out such a play, it would almost assuredly be mentioned in the game recap in the paper. Just because the source isn't easily available online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. matt91486 (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't meet the "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." most of the sources so far are trivial coverage, I also agree with B to email me those sources you found to see if it's enough. Secret account 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Additional comment: A search of message boards has alleged that the "USA Today for October 2, 1987" has complete roster information for replacement players for the 1987 NFL strike. That source would obviously come in handy here. For interested parties, that note can be read here. Obviously, this isn't an official source, but it does give his roster number and say where the information can be found, should someone look for it. matt91486 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for commenting so many times in succession. I just decided to go through my University library to look up some stuff on online databases. Cowne is mentioned in a July 28, 1999 article in the Roanoke Times as well. But the more important thing is that Cowne was interviewed in a January 24, 1988 article feature on the Redskins strike replacements in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. I'll see what I can do to incorporate these sources in the article as well. I'd give links, but I don't think the articles are visible without being logged into the network. The network is Access World News, if you search "John Cowne" in there, they'll show up pretty easily. matt91486 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt, thank you for finding these. Do you have the ability to email the text to the articles to me from your library? (special:emailuser/B, obviously, don't post it on Wikipedia) If so, I'll help with the expansion. Thanks. --B (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've never used the Wiki e-mail feature before, but I believe I sent the applicable excerpts your way. Let me know if it goes through or not, I copied and pasted the text so I can try resending it. matt91486 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
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.