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. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Arthur Baird[edit]

J. Arthur Baird (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)

Average coach of small college teams. Fails GNG. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 04:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 04:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 04:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 04:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 04:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 04:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please share this abundance. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles from Newspapers.com have already been added to the article as references. Here are four more: [1], [2], [3], [4].
The jpg in the article is the same as number 4. Those are all ROUTINE. They just give a quick announcement that Baird is coaching a team or he was elected captain, which are the definition of routine events. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reference given clearly goes beyond the definition given in WP:ROUTINE--"sports scores" would be the one that could apply here, and the source goes in to much more detail: his physical accomplishments, where he's played previously, a photo, practice for the team had begun, and projects good prospects for the upcoming season. All far beyond simple "sports scores" as called by WP:ROUTINE. See also WP:NOTROUTINE for more clarification.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So ROUTINE is exhaustive, eh? Anything not mentioned there is non-routine coverage, I'm to understand? That's a tortured argument. The articles do not cover games, so you have to use an analogy if you want to make the discussion of "sports scores" relevant. The newspaper items discuss who will coach or captain a team at the beginning of the season. All seasons have coaches and captains, so like every game has a score, reporting on the coach or captain at the beginning of the season is routine in the Wikipedia sense. It is also routine in the plain-sense meaning of the term. You could find blurbs about every college coach in every college football program back to the invention of American football. So again, every single college coach is notable and should have a stand-alone article? Every detail you mention is superficial, not in depth. Finally, put together, those six articles have about 25 sentences about Baird. Is 25 sentences over four years significant coverage? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how the word "exhaustive" got brought in and I don't see how it's "tortured" at all. ROUTINE is clear in its definitions. The articles provide information that is outside the scope of what is defined as ROUTINE. If we used the "plain-sense meaning of the term" then we'd need to delete pretty much everything on Wikipedia (after all, that's just "routine" coverage for the President of the United States" or that's just "routine" coverage for a global confrontation like World War II). As to six articles and 25 sentences: WP:GNG states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected..." The article in its present state uses 10 sources, but that does not mean that there are not more sources to be found in online and offline media. Enough is present to establish notability through WP:GNG and articles tend to grow once they exist. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it. Clear but not comprehensive. On deleting all of Wikipedia, ad absurdum. My point was about trying to figure out what is "significant", but please keep on quoting policy to me. I disagree on notability, obviously. There is a requirement to establish notability once it has been challenged. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? So he was a lawyer that died, OK. A college bio is not independent and barely reliable. But even granting it as a source, the most notable thing is "Baird became a star for the Wildcats, the first athlete to letter in three sports in one season: football, baseball and track. He was a punter and offensive guard on the football team and was named Chicago Daily News All-Big 10 as a sophomore." That is certainly not close to WP:NCOLLATH. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was that he met WP:GNG which trumps any specialty guideline. You wrote: "A college bio is not independent". It needs to independent of him (not self-published). It does not have to independent of an organization he worked for. It was written after his death when he entered their HOF. Not everyone that works at the New York Times gets a NYT obituary --RAN (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, self-interested maybe would be a better description. But I would not hang any notability argument on Carthage's bio. Can we agree on that? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ridiculous argument. By that reasoning, every coach of every college football team before 1956 would deserve an article. WP:NGRIDIRON doesn't grant automatic notability for any college coach, let alone an average small college coach. And WP:NCOLLATH only grants automatic notability for national awards here Template:College football award navbox and the College Football Hall of Fame. CFBCOACH is the project's own essay. See below for why press coverage alone doesn't mean the subject deserves an article. Let me ask a question: does the coach's record count for anything in notability discussions? If everything was the same for Baird, except instead of being merely a .500 coach, he was winless. Would that change your opinion of his notability? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to your opinion. History has shown time and again that we almost always keep articles about head coaches of college football programs. As to win/loss record, we have found that notability can arise from not winning as well as winning. See List of college football coaches with 0 wins. As for "significant coverage" GNG defines that as "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." that standard has been met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know that I am very unimpressed by what the CFB project thinks of the notability of its articles. Of course having zero wins has its own notability, but my question was if the record of the coach makes any difference to his notability. The newspaper.com articles are not "in detail" and certainly not "significant". And again, even if it was significant, that just earns the presumption of notability, not the guarantee. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some agree with the CFB essay, others do not. The arguments are still sound and worth presenting. I'm not sure you understand the definition of the word "presumed" however...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the Wikipedia definition of presumed immediately below. Are you saying I can't read? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, you just didn't include all of it. You left off "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" -- we're having that discussion now. I don't see how any argument has been made toward the subject violating Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not-- it's certainly not violating any policies and it's not an indiscriminate list of information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the meaning of "perhaps"? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing notable about being a college coach and athletic director. Are all college coaches who have short announcements of their hiring in the newspaper worthy of their own article? How about Ben Mathis? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If were using personal preference as a gauge, that might be true. Popular vote could be drummed up and perhaps a majority of editors would vote to delete. But personal preferences and popular vote are not the measures we use. Can you perhaps show a guideline or policy that supports your argument?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AfD debates are in between personal preferences and simply applying policy. Its like a Supreme Court decision. We have the same policies and the same set of facts before us. But like different judges, we are interpreting the same policies, GNG and ROUTINE, differently and thus applying them to the facts differently. What matters is the arguments made in defense of our interpretations. Ideally, the best arguments attract the most support and achieve consensus. In this case, I'm pessimistic that enough non-CFB partisans would weigh in to tip the balance to my view, but I feel good about the arguments I'm making. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that AFDs are a whole lot less like a Supreme Court Decision and more like an ad-hoc committee meeting where people can come and go as they please--and then someone who hasn't been involved in any of the discussion comes along and makes the decision as they see fit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said "ideally". - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is longer, that is all. I would like to see the law journal articles, I don't believe those are available online. Every other source cited is routine and not significant coverage of Baird. The claim is this man is notable because he told other men enrolled in small colleges what to do on the football field for 10 years. His won-loss record doesn't seem to make any difference to his notability. I haven't looked into the college basketball situation, but I'm betting there is no way Baird would have an article if he only coached basketball and baseball and was an AD. He also wouldn't have an article if there weren't a few CFB project participants who value completeness over notability. I am very interested in how low down the notability scale Cbl62 will go, since they seem to express reluctance, but usually side with keeping and creating marginal articles. Would someone like to start digging into Ben Mathis to see if he is notable? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You express interest in "how low down" I will go on the notability scale -- kind of like a limbo dance, eh? Well, like everyone else, my voting history is public record. See here (pretty evenly split, but a slight majority of my votes [53.5%] are to Delete/Merge/Redirect/Userfy). Compare Mnnlaxer here (90.9% of votes to Delete/Merge/Redirect). As for what constitutes routine coverage, there is, like so much in life and Wikipedia, a lot of grey area. Passing mentions in game coverage and brief announcements of hiring, release, etc. (the kind found in a "Transactions" section in the newspaper) are on one extreme, clearly. Feature stories are the other paradigm. In between ... grey area that requires us to exercise our judgment in assessing the totality of the relevant factors, as we've all done here in good faith. Cbl62 (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2017 (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.
More