Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of college football head coaches with non-consecutive tenure

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. Balanced headcount, marginal sources; there's no way to make a silk purse out of this. Wily D 08:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of college football head coaches with non-consecutive tenure

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

Non-notable list. There is nothing unique about this list. It's basically an indiscriminate collection of information. GrapedApe (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:LISTN--the topic of "returning coaches" is often discussed in primary media outlets such as ESPN, Sports Illustrated, etc. A good number of articles on Wikipedia link to this list. The list is indeed uniquque as no other list or article on Wikipedia contains this information. List clearly passes tests described per WP:DISCRIMINATE essay and the definition of "discriminate" in Wiktionary. Inclusion in the list is clearly defined in the list header and it is very specific.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree...I don't think it passes WP:LISTN as none of the sources in the article establish that this is a topic that receives widespread independent coverage. Additionally, per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, under what Wikipedia is not, I think that this would be characterized under criterion 3 which discourages excessive listings of statistics. Thus, I would conclude that this topic does not have sufficient notability and probably should be deleted. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several Responses

While the list is far from complete and sources are not all provided, it is more than reasonable to assume that any news article about a returning coach would cover that the coach is "returning" such as Bill Snyder Returns and is continued to be brought up later on such as in this article among many others on Bill Snyder.
Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. N/A List format, although long, is not confusing and does not reduce readability. The list is very neat.
In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. DONE header is clear and when possible, notes are included.
In cases where this may be necessary... consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. DONE tables are used.

The first point covers the notability question, the second through fourth cover "criterion 3" of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several Responses to your responses

Where is it established, specifically that this is a notable topic via "multiple, independent sources"?
Frankly, much of this is unsourced. Where are sources to substantiate all of this content?
I'll stipulate to you having addressed the WP:NOTSTATSBOOK issues for the most part, but I still have a slight issue with the length of this article, especially the parts that are unsourced.

Note: I have no doubt that you created and it seems maintained this article in good faith and I apologize if my issue-raising has made it sound otherwise, but I have serious, legitimate concerns to verifiability and relevance. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF no problems. That's the way it's supposed to work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anyone identify the sources that establish WP:LISTN, namely that "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"? A source that only discusses one coach would not meet this criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google search on "returning coaches" gives around 14,800 hits. Of course it's not conclusive, but it's a place to start.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except this list is not about generic "returning coaches", it's about ones with non-consecutive tenure. With all due respect to WP:BEFORE, it will be an easier decision to keep if specific sources that establish LISTN are identified.—Bagumba (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOAH... back up.... What could possibly be the differnece between "returning coaches" and "coaches with non-consecutive tenure" ???--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Returning coaches could mean that they are returning for their xth season (e.g., Brady Hoke returns for his second season at Michigan. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The first hit at [1] is about coaches returning from the previous season at Penn St. The search term is too broad for this list.—Bagumba (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try a less broad one: +"college football coach" +"second tenure" yields around 1,100. Some are Wikipedia pages.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I usually limit searches to news hits to ensure they are reliable sources. The hits each appear to talk about an individual coach as opposed to the group as a whole as required by LISTN. Feel free to point out specific quotation that I may have overlooked.—Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly delimited inclusion parameters, nicely constructed, useful set of in-links. An excellent addition to the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly disagree with the nom and I'm not sure what uniqueness has to do with anything. AutomaticStrikeout 18:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you where you think it garners notability? Go Phightins! (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a fairly uncommon scenario to see a head coach have non-consecutive tenures at one school. This is an informative and helpful list, and I don't see any reason for it to be deleted. AutomaticStrikeout 19:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, most of these are unsourced and don't have Wikipedia articles to cross-reference. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far keeps seem to be ~~WP:ILIKEIT !votes~~, with no evidence to-date that the group, not just the individuals, have been discussed in reliable sources to meet LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was pretty crass and far from the truth. There's a good deal of arguments that support keeping the page other than "I like it".--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Striking. What I really mean is indication of notability of the group would cinch the decision for me.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul (or anyone else), can you please explain how this article meets notability requirements? I just don't see it here. The article is reasonably well maintained, though much of it is poorly sourced, but I just need to see where this article gets its notability. Thanks. Go Phightins! (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the fact that not all entries are sourced matters for the purpose of this discussion. Obviously you can find sources for all of them. I think the key point here is that there are no RSs that talk about the category of coaches with non-consecutive terms. I don't see where it meets notability requirements. – X96lee15 (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Try this one USA Today "Hard to Stay Off the Sidelines" includes discussions on Bill Snyder, Chris Ault, Dennis Erickson, John Robinson, Johnny Majors, Gen. Robert Neyland, Eddie Anderson, and Bill Roper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And here Heisman Pundit "You Can’t Go Home Again" predicts negative results for coaches that return.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, well this is a really short "blog-esque" post that lists a few coaches who came back, not really an assertion of notability to me. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that USA Today = blog-esque ?? The second is a blog yes... by one of the people who vote for the Heisman winner every year. He should be qualified as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, let me clarify, I meant the second one was, and I don't really think that that qualifies as much of a source because it comments that x probably won't do well because n, y, and z didn't without actually giving any information on n y or z. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Another Here's an ESPN article that shows examples of selected coaches that returned while discussing Mike Riley's return.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per criterion 1 in WP:GNG, you think that these are more than "trivial mentions". I don't. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per criterion 1: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I would say that the content in the articles are clearly more than trivial, especially the USA Today entry and ESPN articles that have dedicated sections.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This espn article is definitely a trivial mention. The article is about one coach returning to a school and just happens to list other coaches that returned to a school. There is no discussion of coaches in general returning to schools and its effects. - 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)X96lee15 (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It leads the article with a callout table. The table is highlighted and accented. It takes up significant space in the page. That's not "trivial" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the table isn't referenced in the article. There are no articles I've seen that discuss the topics of coaches in general returning to their teams after a period of time. − X96lee15 (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not seeing the multiple non-trivial sources to satisfy WP:LISTN that I would prefer. I don't feel strongly enough about the subject to subjectively keep or delete, so I'm neutral unless something changes.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see evidence that this "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as LISTN requires other than in passing or as a comparison. As a bit of OR, it might be an interesting cut at the coaching data, but OR is not permitted here, of course. And I don't see this as a useful navegational aid. Novaseminary (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:OR applies. From the OR page: The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Sources have been provided from USA Today, ESPN, and a prominent member of the sports community has expressed a public opinion on the matter--plus individual third party articles on the coaches have mentioned their inclusion. This isn't conjecture. The article cites reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. The question doesn't seem to be if that was done, the question seems to be if that is enough for Notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OR bit was an aside. If it were not OR it is more likely to pass N because it would have received at least some coverage as such. Regardless, it fails LISTN and is not a useful navigational aid. Novaseminary (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it has not "received at least some coverage" in your view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because sources have been cobbled together about "Coach X returns," that's not the same as sources about "The phenomenon of coaches returning to previous schools." The latter is what would be needed to justify this article.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Novaseminary (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try again please explain how Hard to Stay Off the Sidelines and You Can’t Go Home Again and Return Engagements does not qualify for "at least some coverage" when each of these articles covers multiple coaches and the effects of what happened on their return.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a WP:ICANTHEARYOU situation, because it's crystal clear.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RTS-"Bill Snyder isn't the first college football coach to step back into the job in which he made, or began making, his reputation. Some others:..." list provided with details. Yes, I'd say it is WP:ICANTHEARYOU but you are the one not listining. This article specifically and directly covers the topic you say is not covered. The article "You Can’t Go Home Again" also specifically and directly covers the topic you say is not covered. The third ESPN article covers the issue not as the main thesis of the article but does provide some details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Paul McDonald points out above via links, the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as required by Wikipedia:LISTN. Requirements such as "this is a topic that receives widespread independent coverage", "that this is a notable topic via "multiple, independent sources"?", "a really short "blog-esque" post that lists a few coaches who came back", "the multiple non-trivial sources to satisfy WP:LISTN", and ""The phenomenon of coaches returning to previous schools." The latter is what would be needed to justify this article" are not in Wikipedia:LISTN. In addition to meeting LISTN, the list meets WP:LISTPURP: it is a valuable information source and provides navigation and development purposes. References are easy enough to add - I started from the top and quickly sourced the first five entries in the list.[2] Keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul McDonald and Uzma Gamal: passes WP:LISTN, worthwhile. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:LISTN because there hasn't been significant coverage of these people as a group. There is only one instance I can find where these people are treated as a group, and this is just a sidebar to an article and is not enough on its own to establish significant coverage under WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Other citations provided are 1) a blog that is not a WP:RS and 2) an article that doesn't treat these people as a class in any depth. What we have here are trivial treatments at best. I could find nothing additional that would support these. Hence delete is the appropriate course. --Batard0 (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the post made by Paul McDonald. I see no problem with this page and the information seems useful and of great value to those who have a specialist interest in this subject. Fireflo (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2012 (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.