Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick F. Burke

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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick F. Burke

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "deprod as claim of passing WP:NGRIDIRON". And indeed the article does claim that this person played a year in the NFL, after being drafted by the NY Giants, before a knee injury ended his career. However, there is no record of him actually appearing in an NFL game, nor actually appearing on the NY Giants roster, see [this], [this], and in case he waited a year to go into the NFL, [[1]]. Also, at NFL.com, there's nothing about him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in view of the above information unless someone can prove he played in the NFL.I did check the sources and it said it in the obituary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. I will be rewriting and expanding tonight. Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now completed my initial revisions. The sources found reinforce my view that Burke passes WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:IMPACT. He was the star lineman (and 1957 captain) on Michigan State teams that went 24-4 in three years with Burke and were ranked No. 2, No. 9, and No. 3. He also received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources (including The Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and Lansing State Journal) that allow for the creation of a well-rounded biography -- precisely what Wikipedia aspires to. Cbl62 (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ as of this revision. I wouldn't consider the two Lansing State Journal pieces to be signficantly in-depth. The Boston Globe piece is a good staff obit. The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune piece is an obit with no byline, which could well me his family wrote it; I helped write my grandfather's obit in the local paper. The Boston Herald piece is another staff obit. It's close with that sourcing, but not quite enough for me to say it crosses the GNG line. The sourcing isn't terrible, but the career pieces aren't quite as strong as I'd like, and for me, when all of your best pieces are obituaries, that starts to get to WP:NOTMEMORIAL for me. Call me a deletionist if you want to, but I couldn't really find anything better, and I don't think this quite crosses the GNG bar. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: If you're willing to take a second look, a good deal of expansion occurred after you weighed in. While I believe depth of coverage is found in multiple sources, I'd ask that you consider as well the following provision from WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Here, the sourcing is sufficient to allow for creation of a well-rounded, encyclopedic bio. Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep now. The obits give fairly good coverage, and while most of the lifetime sources aren't quite up there, there's enough in there to indicate that he was getting some coverage during his career, neutralizing my NOTMEMORIAL concern. I think this one's a bit borderline, although maybe that's just a lean towards deletionism. I think there's just barely enough here for a GNG pass. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I belive this person manages to passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG per the sourcing and improvements made to the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is in good shape now due to Cbl62's sources and improvements. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article sure do seem to pass WP:GNG to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2020 (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.