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 no consensus. I discounted the comments by Jrcla2 and TonyTheTiger for not providing a reason and Theseeker for not addressing the other sources. After reading the other comments in detail it seems to boil down to a discussion about whether the sources are reliable and whether he actually coached a highest amateur league. Neither of these points received consensus. I recommend especially the last point to be worked out if the article is ever renominated. Mgm|^(talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul LaVinn[edit]

Paul LaVinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. College football coach who fails WP:NOTE. All we have is statistical info from some 9 Google hits[1], all of them used in the article. He is mentioned in four Gnews hits[2], but these are truly passing mentions, not giving us any information about the person. Has not coached at the highest level of the sport by far, has not played professionally, has no other claims to notability. The college football essay referenced on the talk page has been ignored many times in the past few months and does not represent the consensus of most Wikipedia editors, as it is way out of line compared to WP:NOTE,WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Fram (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable. The referenced essay does not negate the guidelines of WP:N and this person clearly does not pass WP:N. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established. Also, "5 wins, 22 losses, and 2 ties" ranking 13th at Eureka in total wins and 13th at Eureka in winning percentage. These are not good records. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  He doesn't have to be notable for success. He could be notable for his failures. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously verifiable information, the only question comes down to notability. While there has been some opposition to the essay at WP:CFBN, the opposition only states "that's not policy" and fails to address the aguments within the essay which strongly support keeping. I say that the notability comes from involvement as a head coach in three sports at two colleges over seven years in three major sports. Being critical of the success/failure record of the coach has no bearing on the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments in the essay come down to "damn the lack of sources, these things are notable anyway". Well, no. There are no sources about this person, only statistical sources about his tenure as a coach. No articles in reliable independent sources about the coach are available. Fram (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response that's a creative assesment at best. I encourage all readers to follow this shortcut to read the section on college football coaches, including the seven reasons to keep college football coaches as well as common arguments encountered. Read for yourself what the essay says.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would urge all editors to have a look at that section. We should keep these articles because 1) they are useful, 2) the coaches are wellpaid, 3) the college sport receives significant media coverage, 4) statistics are available, 5) they may have coached at multiple colleges, 6) the articles get edited, and 7) otherwise we have a redlink (or many) in our navbox... Only argument 3 is to the point (if the coverage is about the coach at least), and is well covered by WP:NOTE. No such coverage is currently available for this coach. The other arguments are contrary to our standard guidelines (e.g. notability is not inherited) our not relevant at all. Fram (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes please go read and pay close attention to #2 and #7. Ask yourself: "Did the editor really accurately portray the spirit of the arguments made here?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several related projects have been sent notificaiton of this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I came here from a notice at WikiProject Universities. I don't usually weigh in on this sort of thing, but I'd probably advocate keeping this article. WP:ATHLETE calls notable those athletes who have competed at the highest level of amateur sport, and LaVinn was a coach at an NAIA/NCAA Division III school. It's a bit of an extrapolation, but I'd say that qualifies LaVinn as notable, too: he coached college sports, not Pop Warner football. Esrever ^(klaT) 19:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The highest level of amateur sport thing only applies when the sport has no professional level. E.g., good amateur tennis players, cyclist, soccer players, ... are not included, because there is a professional level for the sport. Furthermore, is "Division III" truly "the highest level"? Fram (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "highest level of amatuer sport thing" always applies to amateur sports, regardles of the existence of a professional league or not. This is covered in this essay, but you don't even need to go there--just read WP:ATHLETE and realize that it does not say "amateur sports are excluded if there is a profesisonal league" or anything like that. Please stop attempting to make the guideline say something it obviously does not. Also, the "highest level of amatuer American football" is "college football" -- not semi-pro, not sandlot, not high school. Separate divisions in NCAA and even NAIA play each other. And finally, in 1945-1952, college football was the primary expression of the sport--the NFL was not that big of a deal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point out as well that the NCAA divisions aren't based on skills, but on funding and school size. Division III schools, for example, don't offer athletic scholarships, but that's no indicator (necessarily) of athletic abilities. D-II and D-III programs aren't the minor leagues to D-I's major league. Esrever ^(klaT) 20:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should also be pointed out that at the time of his coaching, there was only one division in the NCAA, as evidenced here (and by what I can find, they were in the NCAA at the time). If Div I NCAA is the highest division, then this certainly qualifies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I became aware of this AfD through an indication in my watchlist, which includes every entry I edit, and also via a notification on my talk page from this article's creator. Although my only contribution was to move the main title header from L. Paul LaVinn (football coach) to Paul LaVinn, I am an inclusionist and feel that on the very first glance, simply on the basis of the twelve reference footnotes, this article has earned its place in Wikipedia. But there is more—coaching at two major educational institutions and, as one can see from the Template:Eureka Red Devils football coach navbox, being among sixteen other head coaches, none of whom has been nominated for deletion. Usually, other stuff exists, is not a good argument for retention, but it appears to be applicable in this case since this entry is the only one singled out for deletion.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only nominated this one because I came across this one through "random pages", and because every person has different notability. Some coaches may have played professionally, some haven't. They can't be judged all together, but should be judged individually. To keep this one because no other ones are currently nominated is a bad reason. As for the twleve references, they are from only five websites, none of them reliable independent sources in the traditional sense (they are either statistics sites or school sites). Fram (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no reason not to consider statistical-based sites as reliable and independent, and the school sites can be good supplemental material. Also, remember the time period in quesiton and please don't confuse 2008 with 1945.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics-based sites are not necessarily unreliable, but are not about the coach. And I don't confuse 2008 with 1945, I have no idea where you get that idea. I have written a number of articles for older subjects (ranging from 15th century to 20th century), and there were plenty sources available online. While there are more sources for recent subjects, most clearly notable older subjects (certainly, like here, when from an English language country) have a sufficient number of online sources to give clear evidence of their notability, and to build a basic biography. What we have here is not a biography but a list of sporting statistics that has his name attached as the coach. Fram (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Like it or not, at the college level football teams are grouped and jugded under the coach, and the coach is jugded, hired, and fired based on the results of the team. Besides, these basic statistics have made a firm foundation to allow for collaboration among other editors to improve the article and Wikipedia overall.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need the article because otherwise we can't improve the article? Isn't that rather circular logic? Wouldn't it be more of an improvement for Wikipedia if we had an article on the team (or even a section in the school article)? We have no information on the Eureka College college football team, but we have the statistics for a coach of whom nothing else is known. An article on the team, with a table of statistics year by year (with mention of the coach of course), would be potentially useful, interesting, an improvement to Wikipedia and a firm foundation etc. Coaches with additional notability could still be linked from that article and have their own article. See e.g. Auburn Tigers football for an example. But a default option to create articles for all coaches, even if we know nothing about them but their statistics, since no one (i.e. reliable independent sources) has ever bothered to pay any attention to that person, just because that is the way the project has set up their system, is completely backwards. The system must fit the articles, the articles shouldn't be created to fit the system. Fram (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response gee, this is getting a bit old... It's not circular reasoning to have a coach article and not a team article, it's simply an incomplete encyclopedia that we are still working on. You and anyone else are welcome to join the college football project and create team articles, if that is where your enthusiasm lies. But the lack of a team article does not mean that this article should be deleted. And it isn't that no one has never bothered to pay attention to "all coaches" -- or this one in particular -- it's just that the information is not readily available online at present. He is a verified individual in a noteworthy position. As more and more data is found through the process of research, it will be added just like with the millions of other articles on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BIO states "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". The coach of such a team is indeed such a competitor and is the de jure head of the team. It doesn't need to be a long article, but I fail to see how this degrades the encyclopedia in any way. This guy isn't your best friend. He isn't Joe Schmo from Podunk, AnywhereUSA. He is a somebody. As for the given sources, there isn't much on him, but there is much on his record. As such, those facts are appropriate and easily verifiable if there are any errors. Why are the given websites unreliable in any way? Your say-so of "they are unreliable" does not make them so. Furthermore, the OP's comments fail to grasp the basic concept of "Google" and Wikipedia. Google is a poor measure for notability, especially about older topics. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Where did I say they are unreliable? They are not indepth sources about the subject, they are statistical sources about the teams and the seasons. Most of them are not independent (a school website about the school team is not independent, onviously). The first source is not available to me, the others are not about the coach. Fram (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "No articles in reliable independent sources about the coach are available." Your words, not mine. My quotation was meant as a paraphrase. This criteria you are attaching to the article runs contrary to WP:V. Sources may indeed by from a dependent source (such as the school) as long as they are reliable (this is from an educational institution and they have little reason to lie about the basics of the guy's life), but they need to be taken with a grain of salt if an extraordinary claim is made; nothing here fits that description. Furthermore, the fact that one source isn't available to you currently is not the problem of Wikipedia; sources simply need to be available, not online or easily available. That isn't what WP or research is about. Thirdly, the record of the coach and the actions affected under his leadership are what is backed up in these sources (namely, the outcome of the seasons in which he coached). A cited article need not have every single sentence backed up with an article that is exclusively about the subject; this is not WP policy or guideline. Lastly, I fail to see any proof that there are no other sources available. That you found none during a google search is not evidence. I'm willing to bet that if you go to the school and check through their archives they will have a plethora of books, photos, pamphlets, etc. for you to sift through. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You read this the wrong way, by emphasizing one element of a longer argument: I did not say that there a no reliable sources, but that there are no reliable independent sources about him, only reliable but not independent sources on the one hand, and reliable statistics sources about the team which just mention him, but which are not about him. You can't discuss half of this argument, it is all or nothing. Fram (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't be so accusatory. I emphasized what I see as the critical flaw OF your argument. If you have reliable sources (which you contend is the case), but they aren't independent, then there isn't a problem. If you have reliable stats from independent sources, then again, there's no problem. Research is all about citing each and every fact. The fact that some of the information provided is about the record of the individual and it is cited to an independent statistics collection, is not something to be condemned, but condoned and applauded. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And I emphasized what I see as the flaw in your reading of my argument. You link to WP:V to support your statement that reliable sources don't need to be independent. However, WP:V clearly states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Third party = independent. The employer of a head coach is not a thrid party source. I don't mean that such sources may not be used, but that they don't contribute to the notability and shgould be used in addition to reliable, independent sources. This means that the basic difference of opinion rests with the statistical sites, whether one consider these sufficient as "significant coverage" (as defined in WP:N, which again stresses the need for independent sources). I don't think these are the sufficient coverage needed for a biography, these are useful and acceptable background information: you disagree. Fine, these issues aren't black and white. Fram (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read all of [[|WP:V#Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|WP:V]]: Self-published...sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves...so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
2. it is not unduly self-serving;
3. it does not involve claims about third parties;
4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
5. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
6. the article is not based primarily on such sources;
7. the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.

Also note the section on primary sources (also allowed), not just the loose, one-sentence summary at the top. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep College Football head coaches are notable win or lose in terms of WP:N, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Division III is not the highest level of college football. We could change our policies, and broaden our coverage to include anyone who ever played or coached on an intercollegiate team of any sort in any sport whatsoever. The objection would be, that at some colleges, this may be something like 1/3 the student body, & if we would logically extend it to things like the debate team or the chess team, it might come to 1/2. So this is halfway there to saying that even going to college is notable, (though this might make some sense in the 13th century). then WP will become Facebook. If that's what most people want to make of this, I suppose they have that ability. DGG (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why not the debate team? But seriously, "other stuff doesn't exist" is no more valid than "other stuff does exist" -- while there is merit in the discussion in general, how specifically does it apply to this article on this coach? And even more, Division III would describe the teams in 2008, not 1946-1952, the period in question. The comparison to facebook is a big stretch, though... we're not talking about everyone here... were talking about this individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though I'd like to see some personal life information to make this more of a wide-ranged biography. -Jrcla2 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, He coached at the highest level of amateur sports because at the time the NCAA did not have any classification levels. The debate on Division III coaches’ does not apply to this article. 09er (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give any indication what this means for the size of the highest amateur level at the time? Number of teams/coaches, number of players. Approximately, of course... Fram (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question I suppose that information is "look-up-able" but how would any argument about size/etc not violate WP:NOTBIGENOUGH as an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur with Paul. How is that relevant to the discussion at all? — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • • It is relevant in that "highest amateur level" for many people means things like "played in the Olympics in an amateur sport" (e.g. some 60 or so figure skaters every four years), not "played in a league of a few hundred teams with each twenty players", which would mean that for one sport in one country in one year, there would be a few thousand "highest amateur level" players and a few hundred "highest amateur levelk" coaches. It's about the application of a guideline to a particular case, and I thinkit is very relevant. Fram (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Then make your argument over at the guideline page. The "highest" is always the "highest" no matter how many contenders there are. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Plus the highest level of competition of American football in the 1940s actually was college football, not professional. The NFL was not considered "a real job" at the time and the bulk of the focus was on college ball. in 1945, the NFL had only been around for 25 years but college ball had been played since 1869, or just over three times longer. AND, there never to my knowledge ever been an American football game in the Olympics. AND when Pop Warner started at Georgia, the school only had something like 250 students enrolled. CONCLUSION the size numbers you seek may be worthwhile of discussion in general but according to wikipedia standard practice, I don't see how they would apply here. However, you are welcome to look them up and present for discussion as you see fit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The NCAA probably has several hundred member schools. Each school at the time had about 40 to 60 or so members on the Varsity team. Personally I think he was head coach at small time college football program. But that is just my opinion and I try to think of it in terms of facts not my feelings. For this article I just deferred to the governing body of the sport (NCAA). Let face it, WP:ATHLETE is very loose and vague on what is notable. This probably needs to be addressed, but it is what it is. 09er (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So basically, there are at least ten thousand players and a few hundred coaches a year who played at the "highest amateur level" in one sport in one country, making the "highest level" rather worthless (as it was, well, the only level of a competition without levels). I think that using this argument means that you take the most prfitable interpretation of the current letter of the guideline, while throwing out the spirit of the guideline completely.

  You really made a logical leap here--just because there would be ten thousand players and several hundred coaches does not belittle the "worth" of the level. But even if it did, what would that have to do with this article? How do these "general sweeping statements" apply to this article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, actually, it does. If someone has played at the highest level of something with a "pyramidal" structure, where the highest level truly represents the few very best players, then it is at least an indication of notability (although the highest level of something not notable is probably still not notable, but that doesn't apply here). But if the highest level is basically the only level (if you made the team at your college, you were immediately at the highest level), and that level is rather crowded, then something like "highest level" becomes an empty statement and not an indication of notability (though of course not a counter-indication either). I'm afraid that people would suggest keeping this article becaues he was acoach at the highest amateur level, without realising what in this case the "highest level" actually indicated. Fram (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting comments, but you still haven't related these general discussions about WP:ATHLETE to the article on Paul LaVinn that is in question. If you want to argue that the "highest level" is based on quality of play, I guess you could make that argument... is that what you are saying here? If so, I would respond that notability can arise from good, bad, or indifferent quality of play AND that there appears to be a consensus that the "highest level" is much broader than just whoever happens to be the national champion that year... I gues I'm saying that "Other stuff shouldn't exist" is a really weak argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not argued about "quality of play", and don't see how you would conclude that from my previous post. I have also not argued that only the national champion is the highest level, and I have not argued that other stuff shouldn't exist. I have argued that the level Paul LaVinn caoched is not the highest level of the amateur college level competition, but the lowest level, with the post season games as the highest level at the time (from 1946 college football season: "Generally, the top teams played on New Year's Day in the four major postseason bowl games: the Rose Bowl (near Los Angeles at Pasadena), the Sugar Bowl (New Orleans), the Orange Bowl (Miami), and the Cotton Bowl (Dallas)."). Fram (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I interpreted your argument about only the teams who play in the post-season bowls would be notable to mean that only those of the highest quality of play would be notable--essentially because, well, that's how you get into a bowl game. The issues there are 1) some schools opt out of post-season play for academic reasons (Ivy league schools for one) 2) what about seasons before there was post-season play? 3) why this arbitrary cut-off in the first place? Would only NFL teams who make the playoffs count too? I say no, and a lot of editors appear to agree with that. I'm not sure why you continue to argue this line of thinking. Barring any introduction of new arguments, I'm willing to let this AFD stand as-is so that the passing admins can make a final decision rather than get caugth up in WP:WABBITSEASON arguments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Applied to this article, I read the statistics as if LaVinn played at Carthage eight games as football coach, at least four of these in an purely Illinois competition (so not even a national level but a statewide). At Eureka, he also played eight games a year. I can not access the statistics, so I would be grateful if someone else could take a look and see if these where truly "national" competitions or regional (in one or two states only). Fram (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess you could do that, but you'd still be left with nothing of substance as most colleges kept their competition and travel to other schools low during that time. A lot of schools even suspended their program during WWII, just prior to this individual's coaching tenure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• question Can Carthage college or Eureka college be shown to be have important top-level football (or baseball or basketball) teams at the time he was coaching there? That there was no classification at the time does not mean we give up and say there is no differentiation between them and the better-known teams. personally, i regard the fact that he coached three different sports in these schools is a firm indication that their athletic programs were not significant. I recognize these were times of greater true amateurism in college sports, but still this is a little below the level of significance. DGG (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coaching multiple sports and serving as the athletic director was fairly common at the time. Today it would be unheard of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2008 (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.