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 merge to Fay Moulton. MBisanz ^talk 14:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fay G. Moulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable football coach, no biographical information proffered. A previous AfD was withdrawn on an editor's assertion that the college football Wikiproject had declared all college coaches notable and that Moulton was an Olympic athlete. However, WP:CFB's notability essay goes well past the remit of WP:ATHLETE, the subject fails WP:V completely in that there are no independent sources, and the Olympian is in fact Fay R. Moulton  RGTraynor  20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing nomination: Truth be told, following JK's link explicitly stating that the football coach and the Olympian were Fay R. Moulton, I'm surprised this was relisted: it's plain that a Merge to the Fay R. article is appropriate.  RGTraynor  14:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources "no independent sources" -- even though one (yes only one) was on the article when you nominated it. One is more than none. With some effort and improvement, there are now several others (as well as some other sources that aren't exactly "independent" but are useful.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Head football coach at what is now Kansas State University, a NCAA Division I FBS school. Olympian is indeed different and it was discovered shortly after it was suggested that the articles be considered for merging. The College Football notability essay CFB:N does not exceed WP:ATHLETE but merely helps to further define it. Anyone who reads the essay can conclude.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S. Easy to make the mistake since they both went to Kansas State University about the same time. See [1]
• Modified per my comment below. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Delete Simply not notable, as evidenced by the dearth of sources. I don't think that he fails WP:V, because I expect that a large public university will have sufficient fact-checking by enough individuals that we can accept their records that he existed and was their football coach for six games. But the fact that no one outside the university has paid attention to him means that he doesn't merit his own article, although he certainly would be included in an appropriate list. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I hope you're not expecting a significant amount of online sources for a coach from 108 years ago.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not an excuse to not have any sources, you want him to have a page, find some offline sources. -Djsasso (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please look again, there are seven. Do you disagree with them as sources?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable college football coach who is lacking reliable non-trivial sources. -Djsasso (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Food for thought at a discussion on my user talk page, the nominator of this deletion stated: "...we haven't touched Div I and I-A, nor are likely to do so, because there's no dispute that that level does represent the "highest level of amateur sports." For my part, I don't at all believe that coaches at any level of any sport count under WP:ATHLETE, but I wouldn't touch the Div. I articles, because I know consensus would be heavily against me." By the nominator's own admission, this article should be kept.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't a Div-I school when he was coach, what the school became later is irrelevant. -Djsasso (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct! Yep, it was most definitely the highest level of the sport at the time. The NFL didn't even exist yet! Does this mean that you'll go change your stance on the other articles like J. J. Thiel et al?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't read WP:ATHLETE as being applicable to coaches. Coaches are the "face" of the team, with ample opportunities to address the media; I see no reason why the general notability guideline shouldn't be fine for them. Just put him on List of Kansas State University football coaches or a similar list. Eventually someone will write a comprehensive football history of the program, then we'll have sources to re-create it as a separate article. There's no rush. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: No, it was not the "highest level" of the sport at the time. Come now, Paul, you are (I would hope) knowledgeable in college football history, and you know full well that obscure aggie colleges west of the Mississippi weren't big time anything in 1900. The "highest level" of college football was Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Michigan, Chicago and the like. Your stance that whatever is notable now must have been notable in 1900 makes about as much sense as claiming that the players of the 1950 Vancouver Canucks were major league just because the Canucks joined the National Hockey League in 1970.  RGTraynor  14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Sure, Harvard, Yale, etc got more coverage from sportswriters, but the Kansas Jayhawks had an undefeated season in about 1910 or so, major innovations took place at the little old College of Emporia with the forward pass under Homer Woodson Hargiss, and the conference itself was the first to organize with a common set of rules. These teams were integral in the development of college football. "Popularity" does not necessarily equate to "notability" now, does it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply: No, but notability does require proof, which you've not yet offered. What about Moulton's career or this school at the time were remarkable in the annals of football? Anything? Any sources? No. This article survived AfD the first time because you made a claim people took on faith that proved to be incorrect. Right now, "gee, reliable, substantial sources just must exist somewhere" or surmises that he must be notable because you want him to be isn't good enough. Either there is direct evidence this subject fulfills WP:V and WP:N or there is not.  RGTraynor  16:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Maybe put him in a list or table. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response He'd be the one member of the table, as all the other coaches at Kansas State have stand-alone articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lack of independent sources. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - notable enough, but the article needs more sources for verification. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete undistinguished college coach. The main sourcing comes the college newspaper, which shows how limited of interest the subject is. I mean is being ranked 22nd anything special? We66er (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. There is little doubt that newspapers of the day covered the games and coach. Those sources we have to be pulled from archives and years of microfiche to suss out the articles about them, cross your fingers they are digitized and indexed as well. Completely not envious of whoever gets to do that. -- Banjeboi 07:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure the local papers did cover the games and mentioned the coach, but that is not enough to meet the requirement about being non-trivial the article has to be about the coach specifically. -Djsasso (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sports reporters are known to write about such things in order to fill their copy requirements. Little doubt they would be more than trivial mentions. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Fay Moulton. I've been doing research on this, and I've come to believe that this is the American olympian who performed in the 1904 and 1906 games. Check out this link, which indicates the olympian attended Kansas State at the time Moulton was head football coach. The olympian was born in Kansas, and a birth date in 1876 means he was the right age in 1900. I haven't found a source that comes right out and says the two men are the same, but the odds of two Fay Moultons who are athletes being at the same small school in Kansas at the exact same time is immense. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I still haven't been able to find any sources, but if someone in a time zone further east than me could call up the Kansas City library and ask them to look up this item, they should be able to give a definitive answer. I tried, but they had just closed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Fay Moulton (modified from delete above). All credit to JKBrooks85, they are the same person, correctly named Fay R. Moulton. See this link to the book JK mentioned above, you can scroll back to page 212 to read the entire entry. Looks like it's time to fire up those merge discussions again... Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's clear they are the same person we simply merge, no need to discuss if just how, if that needs talking through. -- Banjeboi 03:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fantastic find, Xymmax! Boy, it feels good to uncover that mystery. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Fay Moulton per JKBrooks85

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge If this is the same guy as Fay Moulton, then merging is the best idea. Captain panda 02:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fay G. Moulton and Fay R. Moulton are not the same person. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you clarify if you looked at the source I listed above (found by JKBrooks85)? Are you basing your conclusion on the earlier conversation, or is the book unpersuasive? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. They may be the same person. It's not 100% clear, but there is enough evidence to strongly suggest that may be the case. If so, my opinion is to keep but merge. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. More sources have been added and KSU is a Division 1 university. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:43, 30 September 2008 (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.