Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL quarterbacks by teams beaten

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=List of NFL quarterbacks by teams beaten}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=List of NFL quarterbacks by teams beaten}})

Does not pass WP:NLIST from my perspective, and comes across as WP:Fancruft/trivia. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Article literally copies off one source to present the information, and this is usually only a headline superlative rather than something really followed closely. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Passes NLIST. [https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/tom-brady-joins-peyton-manning-drew-brees-and-brett-favre-as-only-qbs-in-nfl-history-to-beat-all-32-teams/][https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/patrick-mahomes-becomes-youngest-qb-to-beat-all-31-other-teams][https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/tom-brady-nfl-quarterbacks-32-teams/1o7n1hpzuanxh1bcq3mqdaj4b4][https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/russell-wilson-could-become-fifth-qb-in-nfl-history-to-beat-all-32-teams-if-he-can-win-these-two-games-in-2022/][https://www.si.com/nfl/vikings/news/kirk-cousins-can-complete-task-beating-all-32-nfl-teams-2023] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a copy of a single source, and is arbitrarily cut off at "all teams but four". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Clarityfiend's merge proposal also sounds very reasonable to me, so I'd be cool with either. No opinion on how much the list should be trimmed if we ultimately go with merge. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep if renamed List of NFL quarterbacks who have beaten every team in the league and trimmed. (Also remove the criterion "beaten every team he faced at least once", which is just made up.) It satisfies NLIST, but only for every team, not every team but n (n=1, 2, 3, etc.). This is a rare achievement which requires a QB to go to another team and then beat his former team. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Alternatively merge to List of NFL individual records#Quarterback wins, but just the half dozen QBs who have done it all. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• :I'd support a trim and merge. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• :I personally don't believe the list should be trimmed to just those six players. The sources discuss a lot more players than just those six. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• :If you want to trim list, it should include the six who beat all teams plus the qbs who stayed with one team throughout their career and beat all other teams (Bradshaw, Elway, ect.) Spparky (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::* Where are the sources that support this addition? I don't see any. (The closest I can find is that [https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/patrick-mahomes-becomes-youngest-qb-to-beat-all-31-other-teams Mahomes is the youngest to beat all 31 other teams], and that's a different kettle of fish.) Otherwise, this is just an unwarranted stretching of the boundary. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Trim and merge to List of NFL individual records#Quarterback wins. Specifically, I would add a bullet for those retired QBs who have beaten all but one team if they spent their entire career with one team. This would remove Ken Stabler, Alex Smith and Kerry Collins because they played for multiple teams. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• :Kerry Collins is listed in three of the sources above though. Here is [https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/patrick-mahomes-becomes-youngest-qb-to-beat-all-31-other-teams an excerpt]: "Oddly, one other quarterback, Kerry Collins, beat 31 teams, but the team Collins never beat, the Dolphins, wasn’t one of the teams he played for. Collins actually started against the Dolphins four times while playing for four different teams, but lost all four games." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::I find it more notable that a QB spent their entire career with one team and beat every other team in the league (31/31) than being traded and still not beating every team in the league (31/32). Collins wouldn't be on the list of "all but one" if he had never been traded since he never beat the Dolphins. In the end, that will be a decision to be made by the closing administrator. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:::*You may find it more WP:interesting, but that's not what Wikipedia is based on. Sources! Where are your sources? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:::*:If sources were the only criterion, then we would have hundreds of times more articles than we do now. I was featured in my hometown newspapers covering my Eagle Scout project, so should I have a Wikipedia article? The answer is no, because I do not meet WP:GNG despite the fact I can provide sources. At what point do we stop adding names to these lists? Your argument, to me, seems more along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT than putting forward any policy-based or guideline-based argument. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::* Your example, an article in a local paper about a local person/event, does not qualifiy as a Wikipedial source. You are confusing verifiability with notability. [Pet peeve alert: Why do you and others keep typing "::*:", "*::", etc., when the asterisk does nothing unless it is at the end?] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::*:{{re|Clarityfiend}} You asked about my sources, so I provided a hypothetical to show that I can find sources for someone not notable (I specifically said I do not meet GNG). In reference to the pet peeve, I'm not typing the colons and asterisks. That is Wikipedia's "Reply" function probably just adding a colon to the end of whatever indenting text already exists. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::* Sports writers have written about QBs with wins against all teams as a group (I'm stretching just to include the two who beat the 28 then-existing teams), as demonstrated by WikiOriginal-9. None have written about all but one, with or without weird qualifiers/conditions, as a group (sorry, Collins). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This has enough discussion in secondary sources to allow us to have an article on it. The issues above all seem like editing issues, not notability issues. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Trim and merge per {{U|Clarityfiend}}. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOTSTATS. Excessive niche statscruft sourced by a single outlet. Ajf773 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• :The sourcing currently in the article is an editing issue, there are plenty of different sources above. SportingFlyer T·C 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:* Four of five of WikiOriginal-9's sources above discuss these "32-win" QBs as a group, so NLIST is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• For the record, there is only one source currently in the article, and it's a database website, but this is clearly notable. The editing just needs to be cleaned up. Other sources include [https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/the-only-quarterbacks-in-nfl-history-to-defeat-all-32-teams/ar-BB1jqHEh] [https://www.nfl.com/videos/peyton-manning-s-most-impressive-win-over-each-of-the-nfl-s-32-teams-425719] SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The souces provided in this discussion, particularly the CBS Sports, NBC Sports, and Sporting News articles each cover the list as a grouping for WP:NLIST to be met. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: The strongest arguments thus far are for a merger or a trimmed version, but I'm simply not seeing consensus on any of the options. Given the specific options proposed, it would be useful for future !voters to engage with them specifically.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• I frankly don't think "Quarterback beat all teams but three" (or four) merits mention in an encyclopedia at all. I would merge everything above two into quarterback records. However, given the size of List of NFL individual records, and the key role played by quarterbacks in the game, I would split out a separate List of NFL quarterback records. BD2412 T 20:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:* That is an arbitrary cutoff not supported by the sportswriters. Guys who are at 31 are mentioned, if at all, merely in passing and not as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

::* {{re|Clarityfiend}} It is certainly less arbitrary than the current situation, with up to four teams listed. For reasons set forth in the discussion above, it makes sense to list those who have only failed to defeat one team because that will include those who spent their entire career with the one team that was therefore not defeated. It is no burden on the encyclopedia to list those who have defeated all but two teams just the same. BD2412 T 18:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete In my view, the fact that there is a sports news article every time someone newly meets one of this article's criteria isn't enough to establish WP:NLIST; they all just fall under WP:ROUTINE. Obscure statistics frequently appear in ROUTINE references; we can still take an intellectual assessment of the arbitrariness or cruftiness of the list and decide that it's not worthy of encyclopedic record. Aspirex (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• :WP:ROUTINE is a guideline connected to events, which doesn't apply here. Let'srun (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::"Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." Coverage about statistical marks being broken in the moment can very much be interpreted as falling under sports scores routine. Aspirex (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::* You're kidding, right? How can quarterback win records ever be construed as sports scores? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::*:I also want to make sure to note this is clearly, clearly not WP:ROUTINE. It's a list of statistics which have been covered by many different outlets. SportingFlyer T·C 01:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: I still do not see a consensus here. My instinct is to go with the Merge suggestion but there are quite a few editors arguing strongly for a Keep so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Amongst the differing views for this AfD, I see the rationale for deletion and keep being solid. However, that happens with WP:TRIVIA. This is trivia that may or may not cross the GNG threshold. I do not think the merge target really works since the record for {{tq|Most NFL teams defeated at least once, career}} is already there, but at the same time deleting for the sake of cruft or lack of GNG may work. That being said, perhaps a no consensus may be what is determined. I would rather this article be trimmed, and written to fit some other obscure stats that probably have GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Simply put, there are enough articles on it from a variety of different sources to make it eligible for a stand-alone article. If there needs to be a merge or editorial discussion, that can happen elsewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 00:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::This is quite clearly trivia from my perspective and the one possible notable portion is someone having beaten all teams but the one they played for. Sites often mention trivia, it doesn't make it notable to just be a fun fact. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::Per TRIVIA, {{tq|A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective collection of facts or examples.}} This is clearly not the case here, it's clearly a very discriminate statistic. SportingFlyer T·C 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I'm glad that is only an opinion. I do not wish to vote on this one simply due to how this article is written and open-ended the sources are. Conyo14 (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::@SportingFlyer: Regardless of any Wiki policy or writing, this is pretty clearly just a "fun fact" / trivia. It's not something anybody actually cares about or notes in a serious capacity. It's not an accolade that's added to player record or info sections. It's just something that you go "huh, neat" to any move on from. You know why? Because wins are a team stat, not something specific to quarterbacks. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Again, opinions are not policy. SportingFlyer T·C 19:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I could see keeping the article as "List of NFL quarterbacks who defeated every team" and trimming it to those quarterbacks and possibly those who defeated all but one (since if you played only for one team you obviously couldn't beat that team and I have no doubt that there would be sources that such quaterbacks defeated every other team). But how is something like "quarterbacks who defeated all but four teams" anything but OR? Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::That's an editorial argument, not a notability argument. I wouldn't have any problem with trimming the list. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::I don't understand why we would need a whole article for two stats when it could go in the List of NFL individual records. Conyo14 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I am not sure this really fits into List of NFL individual records. We could add the record for most teams beaten, but some quarterbacks have beaten all teams (or all but one) when there were fewer teams. I don't disagree with SportingFlyer that the issues I have with the article can be resolved by renaming and dramatically trimming, which I am fine with, but that doesn't seem a whole lot different than deleting and just adding an article under the new name with the little bit of list content that would be retained (and a new lede).

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: I think this qualifies for a third relisting. There seems to be a weak consensus against keeping this as a standalone article (despite some editors presenting legitimate evidence for notability) but definitely not a consensus for deletion and no consensus on how to handle some degree of merging. Closing this as no consensus seems like closing against consensus and so perhaps a third relist will provide clarity on a merge/rename/plan.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to List of NFL individual records#Quarterback wins. A separate discussion can take place on that article’s talk page to determine how much content, if any, that article should accept. In my opinion it should be limited to the quarterbacks who have beaten all teams or all but one team (since some play for a single team their entire career). Frank Anchor 13:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to List of NFL individual records#Quarterback wins per Frank Anchor. This is certainly a record that everyone can agree on. It is WP:TRIVIA past one team they haven't beaten. Conyo14 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• :That's not a good merge target as that article is not set up to be in the same list form as this one. SportingFlyer T·C 18:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::That's a darn shame. This is my !vote and I know how it can work. Conyo14 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.