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 Userfied and deleted by User:Topbanana. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Bit of an odd one this. This article was previously considered for deletion as part of a mass nomination and was deleted. It was then restored "with permission from deleting admin" (quoted from edit log). This "permission" was obtained here. However I disagree with the deleting admins unileteral overturn as all of the independent sources appear to be small local sources and there is a question over whether these confer notabality - personally I don't think they do. At the very least I'd prefered this to have gone to deletion review to reguague consensus given in my opinion it's not a clear cut case that restoration is appropiate. Given that it's now back in article space I think another AfD is in order to gauge whether consensus is that this article should be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:DRV calls for first a discussion to take place with the deleting admin, which was done and criteria was met. When the article was improved, the deleting admin reversed the decision. Most of the deleted articles in the previously-mentioned bulk AFD have been restored with explanations at the West Incident essay and workpage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - his sole claim to fame seems to be as a college football coach; I'm not a sports guy but I wouldn't have thought "college football coach" was inherently notable, so therefore the article fails WP:N. I stand to be corrected by a sports enthusiast. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction subject also was a track and field coach for many years. Football was not the "only" claim to fame.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction noted with thanks! But it doesn't change my opinion. I wouldn't have thought track and field coaches were inherently notable either, and I'm not aware of anything about the combination of the two fields that lets them combine to achive a notability greater than the sum of their parts. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:BIO..South Bay (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question why per WP:BIO? Please do not just say "delete per" and give no reasoning, the purpose of this is a "discussion" ... --Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO because him coaching at Geneva College is unspectacular considering the school is now NCAA Division III which is one of the lower levels of college football. If he had coached at the Division I level I'd say he's notable any lower and it depends on sourcing.--Giants27(c|s) 01:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction he coached at Geneva in 1967 and 1968, Division III did not exist until 1973. The two divisions were "NCAA University Division" and "NCAA College Division" (see the NCAA artilce).--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I've corrected might !vote by adding "now" since even though they were on the same level I'd still consider it to be a lower level school.--Giants27(c|s) 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing in the article shows that he passes WP:BIO. Note that it is incumbent on those seeking that the article be kept to prove notability. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy I'll bring this one back in to userspace. Procedure was followed, but apparently consensus does not yet support the inclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request completed userfication, not sure on procedure to close out the DRV. Can someone please close this out as "deleted/userfied" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (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.