Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West

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 delete. ffm 13:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter J. West

Walter J. West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod, basically because "the College Football wikiproject consensus is that college football head coaches are notable". You can see the discussion about this on the article talk page. Basically, I disagree with this blanket notability agreed upon by this Wikiproject, which is in direct disagreement with WP:BIO / WP:NOTE. There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person. He has coached this college team, that is not disputed, but that's about all there is to say about him. His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable, and there are no other facts which would make him notable. While he does meet the notability essay of the College Football project, this essay is so far remote from WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and even WP:ATHLETE as to make it not supported by global consensus, but only by a very local one. I have suggested making a list of head coaches for this college where this info would be available, with only individual articles for the truly notable ones, but that seems to be unacceptable. Fram (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CFB:COACH and points below:

  1. Nominator appears to be "forum shopping" -- editor admits to not liking the resulting discussion on the talk page and wants to try again. By itself, not so much--but mixed in with the rest, worth noting
  2. Nominator failed to notify other editors about the re-nomination.
  3. Nominator openly states that the issue is with CFB:N and the discussion should go there, not on this particular article. Why this article? Why this coach?
  4. Nominator says that CFB:N is in direct violation of WP:BIO and WP:NOTE but does not state how that violation occurs. We would be thrilled to discuss at [{WP:CFB]]!
  5. Nominator states "There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person" -- WP:GOOGLEHITS -- offline sources do indeed exist, as exist for all college football coaches through the massive ammounts of record keeping in the media. Just because you can't find it on GOOGLE doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and football coaching records from 1949-1952 fit into that historical category. Google and other search engines are useful tools in determining notability, but are not the only rule. Even for modern-day players, it is highly unlikely that a first-round draft pick at offensive line will be written about through traditional news and web channels.
  6. "His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable": Specialist Topics are often not well known - Notability does not necessarily arrive from being widely known, but can also arrive from the importance or uniqueness in the field. He was the only coach with his team's schedule--the only coach to play the teams he played, that year in that order. To the untrained eye, yes one college football team can look a lot like another. However, each week rankings and standings are modified based on win-loss records, performance, computer analysis, and even sportswriter and head coaches opinions. At all levels of college football, team "A" defeating team "B" can dramatically affect team "C" in conference championships, weekly rankings, invitations to bowl games and/or bracket seeding in tournaments. Even ESPN.com ranks a bottom 10 every week during the regular season. In the great scheme of college football, there is no such thing as an "unimportant game" during the regular season. Additionally, detailed historical analysis continues on games that have already been played.
  7. "and there are no other facts which would make him notable" except that he was a head coach for three years in college football, an amateur sport at the highest level. Consensus has repeatedly supported notability for this accomplishment.
  8. And for all the other reasons on the talk page--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: To quote from CFB:COACH: "This page is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's." Quite aside from that I feel completely confident that Paul McDonald's assertion of how important every college football team is might not be shared by the average football fan in reference to a program that only last year started Division III football, it is scarcely forum shopping to point out the obvious and ongoing fact that the various Wikiprojects have not, yet, been given the authority to write notability guidelines that overrule WP:N, WP:ORG or WP:ATHLETE. Beyond that, I've no great confidence in their ability to set notability criteria if they assert that every coach who has ever coached a college game is notable, or that any level of college football below NCAA Division I is the "highest level" of amateur sport in that field. That's not "setting" a thing; that's declaring that everyone is notable, and that's an end run around WP:N I doubt many Wikipedians would find acceptable.  RGTraynor  16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to address a couple other of McDonald's points:
  1. Alerting Wikiprojects of pertinent AfD discussions is a courtesy, not a requirement.
  2. Why this article? Quite aside from that this tiny school with no history of NCAA football at any level makes a lot better case for non-notability than a contemporaneous coach at Penn State or Harvard? If you run into an article that doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, it's suitable for the deletion process, period.
  3. Per deletion policy, it is explicitly the duty of editors who wish to save an article to provide reliable sources. We cannot just assume that such sources exist.  RGTraynor  16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, the essay is not a policy or guideline. And yes, this year Geneva College will play in NCAA Division III, and I think (but am not sure) that the previous year Geneva was an NAIA school. But that is now. This coach was at the position from 1949 to 1952--before the NCAA began to divide into divisions, and the school was an NCAA school at the time. So without question the team was at the highest level of amateur sports at the time. While today, the program may be performing at a lower or lesser level, it doesn't matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: It was? Have you any evidence of that? That aside, I just took a close look at the talk page for CFB:COACH, and realized that, in point of fact, only three other editors even commented on it besides yourself, one of those editors pretty much uniformly panned them, and no one else seems to wholly concur. You seem to be conflating lack of comment to Wikipedia-wide consensus to overrule WP:ATHLETE, and that's pretty startling.  RGTraynor  16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* None of those are discussions of your private notability essay. In the case of Dahlene, it is a heavily sourced article for the coach of a major program who wound up being a college president, a post that has been held to be de facto notable. In the case of Moulton, the nomination was withdrawn because he was an Olympic athlete, another de facto notable bit. Taylor had broad notability outside of football. Wright was inducted into the US Track and Field Hall of Fame. And so on and so forth. Truth be told, the thread linking all those AfDs are the passionate Keep votes made by yourself, User:JKBrooks85 and User:VegaDark in almost every case.  RGTraynor  17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Yeah, and the other people that responded, too. Please don't say that because three editors are enthusiastic about a topic that no one else responded when in fact they have. Yes, I am the editor who "passionately pursued" keeping and am "the thread that ties it together" -- thanks for the compliment. But I haven't tried to bulldoze it either. Invitiations for discussion on CFB:N have been sent out to at least twelve other related WikiProjects listed at the Family of Projects as well as inclusion in the College Football Project Newsletter. A simple What Links Here check shows well over 100 articles/user pages/talk pages that link to the essay. WP:CON states "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community." I would say that requests for input to 12 projects, contact to all editors on the CFB team, and over 100 links to other articles/user pages would at least be close to "adequate exposure" -- how can we get more?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't conflate people voting Keep in AfDs with them participating in adopting a consensus policy at a Wikiproject. WP:CON also holds, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale," and "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action." There is even an active notability discussion for athletes over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people); why not post your criteria there and see how many people sign off on it?  RGTraynor  19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the twelve projects that I notified are not exactly a "limited group of editors", plus with the listing among the essays category, the newsletter announcements, and other measures taken--it's not like two or three people got together and decided this--just that a few editors were actively involved in the writing of it. Many, many, many people have viewed and reviewed the essay. The essay has stood up against multiple AFDs in the past and even been referenced on projects outside sports as a model notability essay (Wikipedia Airports, I think). The broader community has been convinced. Yes, consensus can change, and the project welcomes all input on that consensus--but here is not the place to do it. And for the notability/athlete/people project, I think we already have... but I'll go there right now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Needs proof of signifcantly more non-trivial coverage coverage which is also non-trivial if it's to be kept. More detailed points:
    • WP:N requires non-trivial coverage. IMO mentions in record books etc is almost certainly going to be trivial probably listing no more than his record. The coverage in the link provided looks trivial to me.
    • My reading of "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" from WP:ATHLETE is that it should apply to amateur sports or at least sports that were amateur at the relevant time. American football is not amateur so I do not think falls under this category. Even if we accept that this guideline is meant to cover college football I doubt there would be many editors that would consider "Division III" top level. Given the coverage college football recieves in America I would have no problems with coverage of some of the players / coaches for the top teams but I seriously doubt this would stretch to Division III.
    • CFB:COACH does not trump WP:N especially as it's not been adopted and doesn't look close to being.
    • I agree with the others that state that this is a perfectly acceptable place to discuss this. If CFB:COACH was an accepted standard then I might disagree but as it isn't it's perfectly proper to bring it here.
Dpmuk (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that although college football is amateur, american football as a sport is not. We do not have articles on players in the Football Conference as although this could be argued to be the top level of the amateur game, football (soccer) is, as a sport, a professional sport and there are many more notable layers above it. In the case of college football there's the NFL. I accept it's not an exact comparission given the importance of college football in the US but in my opinion it's enough to make this criteria inapplicable and mean that competitors in college football will have to meet the general WP:N guidelines, which of course many will, although this coach does not. My understanding, and intpretation, was that the "amateur sport" criteria was written to include players at the top of a sport when the entire sport was amateur, e.g. Rugby Union up to the mid-nineties, where no player was professional so would never have qualified under the first athlete criteria despite the league they were playing in having a similar standing to the top league in professional sports. This clearly does not apply for college football as the pinnacle of an American Football career is the NFL. Dpmuk (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the NFL does not negatge the notability of college football. Please read WP:ATHLETE more carefully. The second point says "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" not "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports unless there is a professional league for that sport." --Paul McDonald (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it carefully - it's only one sentence! It's basically all down to interpretation and what you take "highest level in amateur sports" to mean. As stated above I think this to mean "the highest level of a sport where the entire sport at all levels is amateur" (e.g. Rugby Union prior to 1995) whereas you take it to mean "the highest level of the amateur levels of a sport". I think both are valid interpretations of the sentence (don't you just love the ambiguity in the English language). However I think common wikipedia usage is more towards my interpretation. As stated above we don't automatically think the top plays in amateur football (soccer) are notable (there's a whole bunch of AfDs to support this). Likewise we don't have articles on the top amateur tennis players, top amateur baseball players etc. (unless they're notable for some other reason under general notability guidelines). Now I accept the situation in American Football is different to all these sports but it's a general guideline and it would be really odd if people interpreted it one way for one sport and another way for others. Dpmuk (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is only one sentence... so why are you adding so much to it instead of just what it says? I hate to be harsh in discussions like this, but seriously: If you know it's only why sentence, how can you be getting it so wrong?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to be WP:CIVIL and accept that people may intpret things differently do you. Just because they do doesn't mean it's not valid - I accept that your inpretation is a valid one I just disagree with it. Why can't you do the same with my interpretation? I'm not adding anything in to it, in this context I would take "amateur sports" to mean "a sport where the entire sport is amateur" - I only expanded it above to make that clear. I would add that I am far from the only person to intpret it like that - see WP:FOOTY/N which has been accepted by many editors. Dpmuk (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated by Paul, this man competed at the highest amateur level, which WP:ATHLETE guarantees to be notable. It's basically like politicians: if we have a single reliable source (if Geneva isn't a reliable source for its coaches, the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress isn't a reliable source for members of the US Congress) that someone was a legislator, that's sufficient to prove notability and to keep the article. We have no more reason to require lots of nontrivial coverage of this man than we do of government officials and professional sportspeople. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have no reason for lots of non-trivial coverage but as per WP:N we need some and I've yet to see any as the one reference in the article is clearly trivial. Dpmuk (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no evidence that the subject competed; he was a coach. The language of WP:ATHLETE is "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Paul is quite wrong; West coached nowhere near the highest level of amateur football as would have been defined either then or now, and was not, so far as we know, a competitor. WP:N does not require "lots" of nontrivial coverage, but it does require some.  RGTraynor  19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- It appears we have an interesting situation where someone has built a series of coach articles for a D-III school that would otherwise be considered acceptable for a D-IA (now FBS) school. Here's my suggestion: Merge all coaches were weren't notable enough (i.e. went on to a bigger program or professional league) into an article about Geneva College Golden Tornadoes head football coaches or something like that. If a coach deserved more information, then simply have a "see main article" branch within the article on the group of coaches. I think all the information present in this article would be appropriate for that merged article. --Bobak (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitations were sent to Sports and American Football projects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As this guy plainly fulfills the college football project's criteria, why are you seeking to have just this article deleted? Perhaps it would be more productive, if you believe the criteria to be contrary to overall notability standards, to seek to overturn the project's criteria and then revisit this question? Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I consider "signifcantly more non-trivial coverage" (which is what it said when I placed my "keep") to be equivalent to "lots". Anyway, seeing how many people we have in Category:American football officials and Category:Baseball umpires, I'd guess that other people than the actual sportspeople are generally considered to count under WP:ATHLETE. I'm well aware that other stuff exists, and that we're not debating whether baseball umpires should have articles, but please consider that "competitors" apparently isn't always interpreted as meaning just the people actually playing. Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, that really is the overwhelming definition, actually; competitors are those who compete. As you say, this AfD isn't about baseball umpires, although I agree they don't qualify under WP:ATHLETE either and must rely upon WP:BIO's general (and far stricter) criteria. That being said, my position - and that of Wikipedia policy, come to that - is that no Wikiproject yet has the power to override broad, explicit policy and guideline. While my somewhat harsh answer to Paul's legitimate question of "How can we get more?" is "If you can't, you have no meaningful consensus," this AfD must still be decided on black letter, official policy and guideline. No such policy or guideline supports retention of a biographical article for a subject without any meaningful, reliable sources, no biographical information whatsoever, no evidence of notability and who means none of the explicit secondary criteria under WP:BIO.  RGTraynor  21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even ignoring the fact that it is perfectly within wikipedia policy to discuss this here, it is also seems to me to be the best place for it as I bet many people with an opinion on this subject don't even know the college football project exists and are even less likely to comment on the guidelines there. Instead of moaning about this discussion being held at AfD why don't you consider this an oppurtinity to start to form a wider consensus on at least one part of the college football guidelines. I also suspect that this will be a bit like a test case and that many other coaches will be nominated if it succeeds. Dpmuk (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Be happy to. Already invited users from over 12 other projects, commented and participated in multiple AFDs, listed the essay in the wikipedia essay category, worked with comments on WP:N, ... what else should the project do? The project has asked and asked, but no one seems to want to comment on the essay, only on individual articles. Per WP:CON, silence implies consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Upon reading everyone's arguments. It appears unless we redefine the meaning of "competitor", "highest level" and only for a certain value of "amateur sports", criteria in WP:BIO are simply not met. The basic problem here is that the wikiproject involved doesn't seem to agree with Wikipedia's scope and policy. However, Wikipedia is not a universal wiki, it is not a wiki farm, if the rules are not adequate for your project, the most sensible course of action is to migrate to a separate, specialized wiki, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Wikia ? Equendil Talk 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been discussed to my satisfaction. I didn't see much of a counter argument regarding : 1) coaching as opposed to competing; 2) the "highest level" of college football; 3) lack of non trival coverage. I read people's points, I formed an opinion, I did not feel I needed to reiterate points already made, so I didn't. I'm also not quite sure how "amateur sport" is to be interpreted in WP:ATHLETE hence my mention of it. I read it as including those sports that don't have professional competition. Equendil Talk 00:11, 14 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, lifebaka++ 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / request. Please would he /she who closes this please delete all coaches with similar non notable bios. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable. As if WP:ATHLETE wasn't bad enough. No Wikiproject gets to give their favorite topic a free ride.Kww (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I would be prepared to accept assumed notability for the coach a a major college team; i would probably accept it for someone who had in some way a seminal or historic role possibly even within the college; I would possiblyy accept it for even a small college where the coach's tenure was associated with championships; but for a small college coach with an undistinguished record holding the position for 4 years only and associated with no major developments of any sort--this is just plain unreasonable. I accept specialized guidelines, but they have to meet the test of common sense as judged by the overall community. I'll defer to those particularly interested as long as they're reasonable about it, and in this case they are not. DGG (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per DGG; do not accept arguments of the keep people to be sufficient to ignore the site-wide policy, and a Wikiproject does not make policy that can override site-wide policy. Daniel (talk) 13:03, 17 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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walter_J._West