Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Sands (American football)

:{{la|Robert Sands (American football)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Sands_(American_football) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Robert Sands (American football)}})

Virtually no references provided on a player who lacks the significant, independent, and reliable coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Luchuslu (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by Nominator While I am concerned about the state of the article, the fact that some verifiable information exists is acceptable for now. But I would suggest the WP:NFL community should work more toward adding sources for standalone articles. Luchuslu (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep having actually played in a regular season game, he passes WP:NSPORTS guideline and we normally keep anyone who has played at that level.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

::It also says on WP:NSPORTS that "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." Also, WP:Other stuff exists isn't a valid reason to keep an article. Luchuslu (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:::The information is easily verifiable--and due to Cbl62's research, is indeed verified. Which also shows that the subject passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

::::Of those 16 sources listed, nine were about his time at West Virginia, five were about him getting arrested for domestic abuse, one was bout a "big hit" on Jerome Simpson in practice and one was about him moving from Miami to Cincinnati after the lockout ended. None of those sources establish any notability based on his stint in the NFL, unless you count being arrested for beating your wife as notable. Luchuslu (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::WP:NSPORTS counts playing in a single play as notable. I see no reason to ignore that guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::I'll quote the section from WP:NSPORTS for you one more time. "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." The sources in the article and on this AfD page aren't signifiant enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. I'm not ignoring WP:NSPORTS, I'm saying Sands only passes part of it. Luchuslu (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. He has played for the Cincinnati Bengals of the NFL and is presumed notable under WP:NSPORTS. A quick search also reveals that he has been the subject of coverage in the media: [http://www.journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/539646.html here], [http://www.dailymail.com/Sports/201012271017?page=2&build=cache here], [http://www.register-herald.com/sports/x519103904/Sands-shifty-in-first-start here], [http://www.register-herald.com/sports/x519102280/Mountaineers-free-safety-Sands-ready-as-true-freshman?keyword=topstory here], [http://www.thedaonline.com/sports/sands-plays-through-injury-1.1660003#.UcZq8PmTjVQ here], [http://www.dailymail.com/ap/ApTopStories/201107260320 here], [http://www.wvgazette.com/Sports/todayssportscolumn/201007020802 here], [http://www.wvgazette.com/Sports/201008140412 here], [http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/x1016270903/No-Headline here], [http://timeswv.com/wvu_sports/x681689229/Southern-players-arent-used-to-Morgantown-snow here], [http://www.smokingmusket.com/2011/8/6/2348151/robert-sands-stirs-things-up-at-cincinnati-bengals-practice here], [http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/06/bengals-robert-sands-arrested-accused-of-assaulting-his-wife/ here], [http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/1/4/3837648/bengals-safety-robert-sands-accused-of-assaulting-his-wife here], [http://www.fox19.com/story/20508183/injured-safety-robert-sands-arrested-in-florence-on-friday here], [http://www.kypost.com/dpps/sports/football/bengals/bengals-safety-robert-sands-arrested-on-domestic-assault-charges_8140882 here], [http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/01/04/injured-bengals-s-sands-arrested/ here]. Cbl62 (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

::See my comment above. Luchuslu (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

::Also, as said on WP:GHITS, "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Luchuslu (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:::Plus you'll need to incorporate those sources into the actual article for them to count toward any notability guidelines. As the article stands, it has one minor source and very little content. Luchuslu (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

::::There is no deadline and Wikipedia is far from complete. They'll get put in, but it doesn't have to be right this very second. It is enough that the data is verified.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Satisfies NSPORTS and has sufficient reliable sources to pass GNG. Calidum Sistere 06:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep He played in an NFL game, which means he is automatically notable regardless of sources.--Yankees10 02:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

::With all due respect, that couldn't be farther from the truth. But I am softening up a bit on the WP:GNG issue. However, sources are required for all articles no matter how notable the individual is. Luchuslu (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

:::Sure there should be sources. But as far as I am concerned the only source needed is NFL.com to prove that he played in an NFL game.--Yankees10 03:06, 25 June 2013 (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.