Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. L. Mains

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. – bradv🍁 01:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. L. Mains

[edit]

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

S. L. Mains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that he meets WP:BIO could be found. The information from the non-reliable sources findagrave and rootsweb contradicts each other (perhaps that's why these are not relaible and shouldn't be used?) Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: At your suggestion, I've now rewritten this to the point where it is now at least a "passable stub" supported by reliable sources. Will you now consider changing to "keep"? Cbl62 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I don't think WP:HEY has been met. As the discussion has turned to an essay, I'm not inclined to change my position. I'll let the consensus determine if the sources I gave you are enough for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notion advanced by some that every "head" football coach at every college ever is notable is just ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mains qualifies under WP:CFBCOACH, and I added several sources which are sufficient to demonstrate that he also passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Cbl62 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per the sources from Cbl62. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CFBCOACH is an essay, not an accepted guideline, and with good reason. As for the sources: rootsweb is not a reliable source (just like findagrave), this shows notability for the team, not really for Mains or others mentioned in it, this gives a 404 error, this is typical routine local coverage. Which leaves us only with the two local obituaries, which at least talk about his sporting career (unlike what is the case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F. W. Sweeney), but are not really sufficient in my view. Fram (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good sources, typical outcome for college football head coaches is to keep the article. WP:ROUTINE applies to events and not people. WP:LINKROT is not a reason to delete. The WP:CFBCOACH essay is widely used, referenced, and linked in discussions--one of the standards in Wikipedia:The value of essays. It's been found useful for a number of reasons, including as a place where discussions are refined and improved over time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paulmcdonald, as an admin, it would be better if you didn't constantly misuse essays and guidelines in your effort to keep these articles.
      • No one mentioned LINKROT, so that's a strawman
      • No one mentioned WP:ROUTINE: what we do have though, is your constantly misapplied WP:SPORTBASIC, which actually explicitly contradicts you:
        • "Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage."
      • CFBCoach is always used by the same few people trying to avoid having to show that the subjects meet the GNG, and is a last resort when nothing else works. It is not a convincing argument to use to keep an article, as it is circular reasoning. The same goes for your mantra of "typical outcome".
    • Please stick to policies and guidelines, and even more importantly don't misrepresent either these or the opinions of others (when you use them as strawman arguments). Fram (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Fram, you used the phrase "typical routine local coverage" above in one of your comments so I responded. As to the rest of this "dance" going on, I don't dance and leave the evaluation of disagreements up to the closing admin. The fact that I'm a Wikipedia admin myself has no bearing on this AFD (I'm simply participating as an interested editor) and I'm unsure why that's mentioned.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: You've overstepped in your edit summary calling Paul "clueless" (dictionary definition: "having no knowledge, understanding, or ability"). We can have differing views on the notability of S.L. Mains, but the personal attacks are wholly unnecessary. Cbl62 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: It used to be that admins read stuff like WP:CLUE, which talks about use of reasoning rather than use of rhetoric. A professional critique is not a personal attack, even if they both hurt your feelings. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: Not an issue with my feelings. Just trying to keep things civil, and your comments crossed the line. The simple gist of WP:PA is as follows: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. . . . Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Calling someone "clueless" (i.e. "having no knowledge, understanding, or ability") is a derogatory comment not on the content, but on the contributor. This should be avoided. Cbl62 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI--WP:CLUE and WP:HEY and User:Chris troutman/My RfA criteria are also all essays.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI also -- per WP:LINKROT, one editor mentioned a source "gives a 404 error" so I responded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI also -- I cannot find any link I made to WP:OUTCOMES. I did use the phrase "typical outcome" when referring to WP:CFBCOACH which contains a Head coach notability discussion library with a number of related AFDs so readers can review what is a "typical outcome" of an AFD on a college football head coach. It's useful information and germane to this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI also --- (and hopefully finally) I didn't reference WP:SPORTBASIC in this discussion either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The closing admin need not resolve the broader debate presented here between Fram and Paulmcdonald as to whether or not all head coaches should be presumed notable. In this case, the consensus is clear (at a 5-to-2 rate) that the coverage of Mains is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._L._Mains&oldid=947889321"