Frank Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage about coach, fails WP:NCOLLATH. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The mass nomination of coaching articles in the past couple days is a bit overwhelming. There's an important issue to be debated, but the issue could be better assessed with time to analyze each case. In my case, I am flying out of the country tomorrow for three weeks, so regrettably my time will be limited in digging through the sources. No time to fully assess and weigh, but here are a couple hits on Masters from Newspapers.com: [1], [2], [3]. As noted in the other AfD about a coach from The Apprentice School, it is significant that this is not a college or university, but rather an apprenticeship school for a private shipbuilding company which, at the time Masters was the coach, had a total enrollment of only 475 students -- smaller than most urban high schools. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is overwhelming is that this user has created about 1,500 articles on coaches without respect for significant coverage, under the mistaken belief that they are automatically notable. Most of them coached for teams of schools that like this one are very small and do not play at an actually competitive level (and would likely lose to those high schools!). These brief mentions are moreso coverage of what is happening with The Apprentice Builders football team and not biographical. If the team itself isn't notable, why should all of its coaches be? Reywas92^Talk 14:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In December of 2008 (for this article anyway). Why the rush? Why have deletion review all at once on so many? Why do you feel "overwhelemd" by it? I mean, I got barnstars for work like this. Consensus can change, yes... but has consensus changed? Maybe, but I don't see evidence of that--although I do see that there is support for the change. I'm also wondering how you can be so sure what I was thinking while I created (by your count) 1,500 articles over a decade ago. I don't even think I remember what I was thinking I just remember the article creation drive for for the project.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know what you were thinking because you cited Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability when you removed my prods, an essay you wrote but which has not been adopted as a guideline. Consensus has always been that you need multiple independent significant sources for notability, never that low-level coaches are exempt from that. Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes I wrote a lot of that but a number of others contributed. If you'll take the time to actually read it, you'll find that agrees that WP:GNG is the given standard (referenced I think 10 times on that essay) and that the essay demonstrates why largely head coaches by and large will eventually be found to meet that standard. That's different from "automatic notabily" Oh, and of course the essay hasn't been adopted as a guideline... then it would be a guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It takes minutes (seconds maybe) to create an AFD. It takes a lot longer to respond and improve the articles. Mass deletions are still mass deletions. The goal should be wP:Preserve and we should implement WP:Before. The goal is to serve the readers. It is a rigged game. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 7&6=thirteen, as has been explained to you recently, WP:PRESERVE relates to article contents, not whether there should be an article about a topic or not. The goal of AfD is actually to implement notability standards. And the "game" is not "rigged". Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks independent in-depth coverage establishing the WP:ANYBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of your opinions about WP:Preserve. We disagree. You may not see it, but mass deletions stilt the process. We can agree to disagree as to whether this is rigging the system, or merely distorting the AFD process. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]