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. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trooper Taylor[edit]

Trooper Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable assistant college football coach, fails WP:N and WP:GNG. College football project essay WP:CFBCOACH also concludes that assistant coaches are normally not notable. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep forgive me if I am a little rough at this, this is my first time trying to involve myself in a Wikipedia issue. WP:CFBCOACH concludes that assistant coaches are not normally notable, but may be if "assistant coaches ... were significantly involved in a noteworthy event" Would you remove your call to delete the page if I were to include information on his significant involvment in a national championship team? Would you consider it a significant event if while coaching at Auburn, he filed suit against the Auburn Public Schools? If I edited the article with these, and supported it with sources, would that rise to the level of "significant involvment in a noteworthy event?" Additionally, I would like to argue that assistants should be considered notable because they meet the criterion listed as the reason why head coaches are notable. They have some of the highest salaries on campus, media coverage, the University markets them, they move to new schools, etc. However, the college football notability talk page only discusses the notability of players, games, and seasons. Not coaches. How do I add that discussion to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aub2010bcsnc (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Welcome newbie! Adding a discussion is simple and you are very welcome to do so! Visit whatever page you want to discuss, and click on the "discussion" tab at the top. You can then add and crerate discussions as you would like, just as you did here! Be sure to "sign" your posts as well by adding "--~~~~" at the end.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I dont think that Taylor has done enough in his career to be notable. Being a coach on a good team doesnt make you notable and the suit about his son is even less notable. He may be known very well around Auburn just like Scott Cochran at Alabama but he is not nationally known. Zwilson14 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I certainly do not think assistant coaches are inherently notable, but Taylor is fairly widely known for his association with Auburn and I think he meets notability standards through WP:GNG for extensive media coverage. As for saying he isn't nationally known; anecdotally, I can say that I personally do not follow SEC football particularly close, yet knew who he was. Here is some media coverage focused primarily on Taylor: ESPN: Auburn's towel-waving Taylor keeps things loose (AP story), Trooper Taylor offered chance to coach at alma mater Baylor (AP story); USA Today: Vols assistant Taylor says he didn't expect a shot at being offensive coordinator (AP story); The Times-Picayune (New Orleans): Trooper Taylor reaches mountaintop at Auburn; The Victoria Advocate (Victoria, Tx): Coaching road leads Taylor to Tennessee; Press-Register (Mobile, Al): Auburn's Trooper Taylor gets to know players, Wide receivers coach Trooper Taylor says freshman DeAngelo Benton will rewrite record books, Auburn assistant head coach Trooper Taylor's son suing local school district over coach's hair policy; The Tennessean (Nashville): Taylor counting on Meachem; Ledger-Enquirer (Columbus, Ga): Taylor returns to familiar place; The Birmingham News (Al): Auburn's Trooper Taylor will play freshman wide receivers; The Chattanoogan (Tn): Trooper Taylor Joins Oklahoma State Staff As Co-Offensive Coordinator; Waco Tribune: Ex-BU standout Trooper Taylor to coach at Oklahoma State; Tulsa World (Ok): OSU's Taylor headed to Auburn; Times-Daily (Florence, Al): Taylor hopes all-SEC snub motivates Adams, Taylor had 'vibe' before leaving (AP story); The Anniston Star (Al): Taylor returning to Tenn. roots; WATE (Knoxville, Tn): Trooper Taylor staying in Knoxville?; WHNT (Al): Trooper Taylor is Auburn's towel-waving, chestbumping dynamo (AP story); Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City): OSU's Trooper Taylor joins Curtis Luper at Auburn Strikehold (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The coverage cited above by Strikehold consists of non-trivial coverage on Taylor in multiple mainstream media outlets and establishes his notability. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that most assistant coaches are probably not noteworthy but I disagree with Taylor. He was formerly an Offensive Coordinator and is currently the Assistant Head Coach. I think any major college football coach that is a coordinator or assistant-headcoach or headcoach-in-waiting, etc are all noteworthy as long as the article is well-written. I think the Trooper Taylor and Jay Boulware articles merit that. Also consider that major college football has a similar following (ie importance) to the NFL in many parts of the country and there are multiple assistant coach articles for every NFL team. Even guys who are just QB coaches or line coaches, etc. And I have no problem with that because there is a HEAVY turnover amongst coaches and yesterdays assistant is tomorrows head coach (Hue Jackson and Josh McDaniels are just one of this weeks assistant->headcoach or head->assistant moves). Again, if the article is well-written and sourced, I think the article should stay. The same for former notable high school coaches...the state of Alabama has many like Rush Propst, Joey Jones or Phillip Lolley. Other states have high school coaches as well that somebody deemed encyclopedic enough to write about....I have never heard of the guys but that doesn't mean they aren't notbable enough for inclusion. Again, non of these assistant coaches that have been nominated for deletion merit removal in my opinion! --otduff ^t/_c 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For what it's worth, I'm a casual football fan and I've heard of him. He appears in enough third-party sources to be considered notable. This isn't just your run-of-the-mill assistant coach. HeartSWild (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I count them like associate professors--non-notable unless proved otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree they are not notable unless proven otherwise (which I believe I did), but that is not really a good comparison. Full professors are not considered automatically notable, whereas Division I head coaches are. Strikehold (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep enaugh third-party sources. Agathoclea (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes the general notability guidelines. Xajaso (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Amazing. Some Wikipedian's think that Wikipeida has become too good to waste its time and space on what reliable sources have clearly spend their time and used their space to cover. It is irrelevant if a Wikipedian thinks that Taylor has not done enough in his career to have been written about in the reliable sources. The reliable sources widely covered and cover this guy's every life move making the topic cearly meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Someone needs to close this one, it's an obviouis keep (and behind schedule) ... what gives?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 31 January 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.