- 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. Jayron32 04:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dwight Watson (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NSPORTS. Hasn't received any significant attention in reliable, independent sources (an obituary in "Telephony" for a general manager of a local telephone company is not really sufficient). Fram (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fram -- Earlier today, you raised a concern elsewhere about this page being an undeveloped stub for three months after its creation. In response to your concern, Paul McDonald and I have begun promptly working on substantially improving this article. Since we have now begun the process you urged, why so quick with the AfD nomination? Given the fact that your suggestion is being acted upon, wouldn't it make more sense to give time for the article to develop? Why the rush to AfD within a couple hours after the improvement process has begun? Cbl62 (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that you two indeed expanded the article, which I had given yesterday as an example in another discussion. It now covers hiw whole life, and nothing in it suggests any degree of notability (the player and coach aspect is insufficient to meet NSPORTS, working as a general manager for a local (branch of a) telephone company is not sufficient either, and none of the sources present then or added since indicate anything different). Instead of doing loads of work on this article, wouldn't it be more logical that you first tried to determine if anytning you find indicates the necessary notability to have an article in the first place? Wouln't it make more sense to spend all that effort only on an article where you know it is a notable subject? Fram (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm simply suggesting that this not be rushed. You made your suggestion about the lack of improvement on this article yesterday at 18:52. Within a few hours, substantial improvements were underway. You then promptly nominated for deletion just as the work was getting started. I don't have further time tonight or tomorrow to do additional research, but based on what we've found after a couple hours' work, this looks promising. Let's give it time to develop. As for suggesting that workload be directed elsewhere, we're all volunteers who have our own areas of interest. The College Football Project has made it a priority to develop articles on the head coaches for the major programs. Eastern Michigan is currently a BCS (top level) college program. Cbl62 (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I really don't care if a project has its priorities wrong. Head coaches are not by default notable, and creating articles for all of them indiscriminately is not the best way to proceed. As for this article, there are "substantial improvements" in covering his life, but no improvement at all in establishing notability, which is the first aspect that should get attention in an AfD. Contrary to what you state, this article and what you foundabout this person doesn't look promising at all, but indicate that he is indeed not notable and shouldn't have an article. Fram (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm simply suggesting that this not be rushed. You made your suggestion about the lack of improvement on this article yesterday at 18:52. Within a few hours, substantial improvements were underway. You then promptly nominated for deletion just as the work was getting started. I don't have further time tonight or tomorrow to do additional research, but based on what we've found after a couple hours' work, this looks promising. Let's give it time to develop. As for suggesting that workload be directed elsewhere, we're all volunteers who have our own areas of interest. The College Football Project has made it a priority to develop articles on the head coaches for the major programs. Eastern Michigan is currently a BCS (top level) college program. Cbl62 (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that you two indeed expanded the article, which I had given yesterday as an example in another discussion. It now covers hiw whole life, and nothing in it suggests any degree of notability (the player and coach aspect is insufficient to meet NSPORTS, working as a general manager for a local (branch of a) telephone company is not sufficient either, and none of the sources present then or added since indicate anything different). Instead of doing loads of work on this article, wouldn't it be more logical that you first tried to determine if anytning you find indicates the necessary notability to have an article in the first place? Wouln't it make more sense to spend all that effort only on an article where you know it is a notable subject? Fram (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fram -- Earlier today, you raised a concern elsewhere about this page being an undeveloped stub for three months after its creation. In response to your concern, Paul McDonald and I have begun promptly working on substantially improving this article. Since we have now begun the process you urged, why so quick with the AfD nomination? Given the fact that your suggestion is being acted upon, wouldn't it make more sense to give time for the article to develop? Why the rush to AfD within a couple hours after the improvement process has begun? Cbl62 (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep obvious retaliation from threat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur S. Herman. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. "Darn you found sources for the other article I wanted to delete" is not a reason to delete this one. Also, it appears the nominator has failed to notify any of the editors of this article when sending the article to AFD. While that's not required, it is an indicator of attempting to hide the process from those most familiar with the topic. There is no deadline on Wikipedia, but sending an article to AFD prematurely creates one and that can be very disruptive to the process. Oh, and the article clearly surpasses WP:GNG as a head coach of a college football program--which not only at the time was at the highest level of the sport, but also today is as well. Head college football coaches are almost always considered notable by the consensus of Wikipedia and that can be verified by reviewing the American football deletion archive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Obvious retaliation from threat"? What are you talking about? What threat and what retaliation? And if the creators of an article don't have it on their watchlist, who will? Anyway, you complained at the other AfD that I hadn't given the article any time, as it was brandnew. Fair enough, so I indicated that numerous much older articles had the exact same problems, e.g. this one. You (plural) then started sourcing this one, and so it became apparent that this person isn't notable enough to have an article here. Now again, you are complaining that I send this article to AfD prematurely. How long do I have to wait then before your articles are "mature". Articles you created three years ago, e.g. E. A. Dunlop and many others, still look almost exactly the same as the ones you create now. These articles don't naturally mature, and in many cases this is because there is nothing notable to say about these persons.
- WOW I just noticed I have a Wikipedia stalker. That's really strange actually...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AND now I gotta go look up more references for another article because we have another threat. There's not supposed to be a deadline here, but you are making one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the actual merits of the article; "the article clearly surpasses WP:GNG as a head coach of a college football program--which not only at the time was at the highest level of the sport, but also today is as well." is wrong at so many levels... you don't surpass the GNG because of any function or position, but because of the availability of indepth, reliable, non-routine sources. And College football is not in itself "the highest level of the sport". Between 1894 and 1825, they played at the "Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association". Claiming that this is the highest level of the sport is not really credible. Fram (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Obvious retaliation from threat"? What are you talking about? What threat and what retaliation? And if the creators of an article don't have it on their watchlist, who will? Anyway, you complained at the other AfD that I hadn't given the article any time, as it was brandnew. Fair enough, so I indicated that numerous much older articles had the exact same problems, e.g. this one. You (plural) then started sourcing this one, and so it became apparent that this person isn't notable enough to have an article here. Now again, you are complaining that I send this article to AfD prematurely. How long do I have to wait then before your articles are "mature". Articles you created three years ago, e.g. E. A. Dunlop and many others, still look almost exactly the same as the ones you create now. These articles don't naturally mature, and in many cases this is because there is nothing notable to say about these persons.
- Delete - For many of the reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur S. Herman; college football coaches get no special exception at WP:NSPORTS. This one is far more cut and dried than Herman's though, scant local coverage for a player-coach. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Jweiss11 (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify keep vote As a general rule, any head football coach of a NCAA or NAIA program or its predecessor should be deemed notable and WP:NSPORTS should be adjusted accordingly, if need be. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if Don Rumsfeld were a Wikipedia editor, he might have said "we go to work with the guidelines that we have, not the ones that we wish to have". WP:NSPORTS, as consensus currently determines, does not confer automatic notability on college football coaches. If you wish to change that, more power to ya, but that no applicability here. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:NSPORTS is written from the current point of view, in which the NFL is the highest level, and other professional leagues, such as AFL, CFL, AAFC, and USFL are lower but still sufficiently high-level for participants to be presumed notable. In 1899, organized college football such as this was the highest level of football, professional or amateur. Further, although there are sources covering MSNC football from this time, they are often not online and require trips to libraries and archives, which means that article improvements are slow. cmadler (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, if you wish to suggest changes to the criteria of sports notability guidelines, then WT:NSPORTS is the place to be. As written right now, this person does not meet it. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's true, but if it were true and the subject doesn't pass WP:NSPORTS then the subject still passes WP:GNG. And even if that weren't true, both of those are guidelines and not policy and can therefore be ignored or overruled by consensus. There is a tremendous amount of history for college football head coach articles being kept through deletion review. I argue that's consensus, or at the very least a measure of consensus worth considering.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this person pass the GNG? Apart from that, a project consensus (local) can not overrule a global consensus (GNG and NSPORTS): they can try this by weight of numbers, but they can not do this by strength of argument, as seen here. The lack of significant sources makes it plain to see for every unbiased observer that this person is not notable. Fram (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple. WP:GNG is met by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- there's more detail to that of course, but a quick glance at the article sources would cover that. For an unbiased observer.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please elaborate which sources you believe qualify for this? Industry reviews reporting on the routine transferring of managers from one company to another, or the death of one, are hardly sufficient as they are WP:ROUTINE coverage (and it's telling that they have zero attention for his coaching career, which was the reason this article was created and why he was supposed to be notable...). None of the other sources even comes close. Fram (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- References there is no need to cut and paste references already in the article here. Read the article, look in the references section. But it doesn't matter, your opinion of college football articles is well known and I am quite sure your mind is made up regardless of anything that is provided or could be provided. Fortunately, it's not you that needs to be convinced, simply a consensus. You're free to have your opinion of course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also found the sources to be WP:ROUTINE as Fram did. Elaborating on what we might be misinterpreting could serve to support your case and change our opinion. —Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- References there is no need to cut and paste references already in the article here. Read the article, look in the references section. But it doesn't matter, your opinion of college football articles is well known and I am quite sure your mind is made up regardless of anything that is provided or could be provided. Fortunately, it's not you that needs to be convinced, simply a consensus. You're free to have your opinion of course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please elaborate which sources you believe qualify for this? Industry reviews reporting on the routine transferring of managers from one company to another, or the death of one, are hardly sufficient as they are WP:ROUTINE coverage (and it's telling that they have zero attention for his coaching career, which was the reason this article was created and why he was supposed to be notable...). None of the other sources even comes close. Fram (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple. WP:GNG is met by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- there's more detail to that of course, but a quick glance at the article sources would cover that. For an unbiased observer.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this person pass the GNG? Apart from that, a project consensus (local) can not overrule a global consensus (GNG and NSPORTS): they can try this by weight of numbers, but they can not do this by strength of argument, as seen here. The lack of significant sources makes it plain to see for every unbiased observer that this person is not notable. Fram (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's true, but if it were true and the subject doesn't pass WP:NSPORTS then the subject still passes WP:GNG. And even if that weren't true, both of those are guidelines and not policy and can therefore be ignored or overruled by consensus. There is a tremendous amount of history for college football head coach articles being kept through deletion review. I argue that's consensus, or at the very least a measure of consensus worth considering.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I will point out similar concerns I raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur S. Herman. The subject fails WP:GNG by lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. Significant "means that sources address the subject directly in detail", not that there are a large number of trivial sources. All the sources related to sports are WP:ROUTINE and limited to having his name in a list among many names. Being a college coach does not guarantee notability. Per WP:NSPORTS, "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." It is only an indication that the subject is likely to be notable. "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson ... will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria." No sources support that he established notability in the three games he coached in his entire career. His military service coverage is also routine, his name mentioned among a list of volunteers. There is inclusion in this article to his liuetenant, future Michigan governor Fred Green. However, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and mention of Green appears unneeded in the article. The only marginally significant sources in this article are in telephony trade journals; however, his non-sports career as seen in these sources is WP:Run-of-the-mill and not notable either. Three sources used are Census information from Ancestry.com. Those documents are considered WP:PRIMARY sources, and cannot be used to establish notability as they are not WP:SECONDARY sources (see also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#Ancestry.com). Though there are 14 total sources in this article, they do not serve to establish the subject's notability. There is also the danger of Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein when synthesizing piecemeal information about a person based solely on the articles mentioning a person of the same name. It is not conclusive that the sportsman, the miliary person, and the telephony person are one in the same. Finally, WP:ARTICLEAGE does not advise leniency simply because an article was recently created. It's notability should be established while being developed on a user page, for example, before subjecting it to scrutiny in the article space. —Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bagumba above, who summarizes my thoughts exactly. WP:GNG does not appear to be met in this case (unless some more significant coverage can be found), and there is no policy that makes college coaches automatically notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- week Keep The argument two above says essentially that if it doesn't meet the rules we will reject it, and if it does meet them we may reject it anyway based on our own notions of what's important. I do not consider that a way to judge anything . (I also don't accept the corresponding inclusionist argument, that if it does meet our rules we must accept it,and if it doesn't we might except it anyway.) We need reasonable rules we can apply without regard to the personal opinions of those who happen to be at AfD for a particular discussion. Including this seems reasonable, but its not my subject. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you saying you don't believe in WP:GNG, you don't think personal opinion should be a factor, but you are saying to keep without citing any specific policy or guideline? —Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from my prior comments, I'll observe that the general notability guideline is just that: a guideline. It says right up at the top, "occasional exceptions may apply". How much more obvious that could be, I don't know. Also, even within the GNG, it talks about a presumption of satisfying the inclusion criteria -- GNG is not the actual inclusion criteria. The core policies are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV]]; WP:NOT is another policy relevant to content. cmadler (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CONSENSUS is ploicy though, and AfD is a community discussion to check whether we should have an article or not, based on policies and guidelines. Not vilating any policy doesn't mean that the article should be kept. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." GNG is a generally accepted guideline, and rejecting subjects because of the GNG is generally accepted practice. To overrule the guideline and to apply the "occasional exception", you need a very good reason to do so. That the subject is long dead and thus that not all sources are as easily available is not really a very good reason to apply such an exception, since we have a pretty good view of what he did and was supposedly notable for, and because there are plenty of sources about the time to make clear who was truly notable at the time and who wasn't (since it is painfully clear that he hasn't become or stayed notable after his death...) 12:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:WABBITSEASON Do you have anything new to add to this discussion, or are we going to continue to hash over the same things we disagree on?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You were the one that stated "Wikipedia is not a battleground" in this discussion. It would suit you if you followed your own advise. I simply replied to the basically incorrect argument that because GNG and NSPORTS are guidelines, they can be ignored. Why you are so bothered by a reply from me to Cmadler is beyond me. Fram (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay heck I agree that I should follow my own advice if it will make you feel better. That's not a reason to delete the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You were the one that stated "Wikipedia is not a battleground" in this discussion. It would suit you if you followed your own advise. I simply replied to the basically incorrect argument that because GNG and NSPORTS are guidelines, they can be ignored. Why you are so bothered by a reply from me to Cmadler is beyond me. Fram (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WABBITSEASON Do you have anything new to add to this discussion, or are we going to continue to hash over the same things we disagree on?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CONSENSUS is ploicy though, and AfD is a community discussion to check whether we should have an article or not, based on policies and guidelines. Not vilating any policy doesn't mean that the article should be kept. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." GNG is a generally accepted guideline, and rejecting subjects because of the GNG is generally accepted practice. To overrule the guideline and to apply the "occasional exception", you need a very good reason to do so. That the subject is long dead and thus that not all sources are as easily available is not really a very good reason to apply such an exception, since we have a pretty good view of what he did and was supposedly notable for, and because there are plenty of sources about the time to make clear who was truly notable at the time and who wasn't (since it is painfully clear that he hasn't become or stayed notable after his death...) 12:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Aside from my prior comments, I'll observe that the general notability guideline is just that: a guideline. It says right up at the top, "occasional exceptions may apply". How much more obvious that could be, I don't know. Also, even within the GNG, it talks about a presumption of satisfying the inclusion criteria -- GNG is not the actual inclusion criteria. The core policies are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV]]; WP:NOT is another policy relevant to content. cmadler (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you saying you don't believe in WP:GNG, you don't think personal opinion should be a factor, but you are saying to keep without citing any specific policy or guideline? —Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not sure that I'd agree that every head coach of every college football team should have an article, but I do tend to think every head coach of every Division IA/BCS level (i.e., the highest level of college football in the US) football team is likely to pass the notability standard. Eastern Michigan is such a Division IA/BCS level team. There has been an effort by good editors such as cmadler to build and develop the articles on each of the Eastern Michigan head coaches, and the Watson article is taking shape nicely. Finally, as some have noted, college football was the highest level of the sport at the time Watson coached (there was no NFL or nationwide professional football league in the early days of football), and so Watson passes NSPORTS as well. The head coaches of major football programs like this are notable, and I see no reason to delete this article. Cbl62 (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Seems to be a decently sourced and written article about a single-season head football college coach who died 91 years ago, and the project has coverage of all head coaches for this program. In the interests of having rational coverage of the subject (its not just one coach at random from the school), I don't see the benefit of deletion.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish there was a like button for comments on Wikipedia like there is on Facebook. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Milowent. One of the hallmarks of quality encyclopedic coverage of sports topics is completeness. This is why we do, and should continue to, allow articles for all major league players, and why it makes sense to have bios for all the head coaches of significant programs--at least in situations like this one, where there has been a concentrated effort to find the verifiable information to achieve such completeness. Why force an unnecessary redlink in the midst of such an effort?--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2011 (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.