Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. L. Mains
- 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)
S. L. Mains
[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
Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Userfy This article doesn't make a claim of notability. With sources like this, this, and this you could write a passable stub. As an immediatist, I don't support retaining this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @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)
- @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)]
- @
- @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)
- 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)
- Keep. Mains qualifies under ]
- Keep Meets GNG per the sources from Cbl62. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Cbl62. Meets ]
- 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 Fram (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)]
- Keep good sources, typical outcome for college football head coaches is to keep the article. 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)]
- 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: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)]
- 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)]
- Being an admin requires (WP:OUTCOMES both suffers a cognitive bias and lacks clue. Even your obvious dishonesty about linkrot is unbecoming an admin but sadly not punishable. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)]
- Being an admin requires (
- Paulmcdonald, as an admin, it would be better if you didn't constantly misuse essays and guidelines in your effort to keep these articles.
- @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)
- @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)]
- @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)]
- @
- FYI--WP:HEY and User:Chris troutman/My RfA criteria are also all essays.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)]
- 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)]
- FYI also -- I cannot find any link I made 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)]
- FYI also --- (and hopefully finally) I didn't reference WP:SPORTBASIC in this discussion either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)]
- @
- @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)
- 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 ]
- 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.