Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Coffman


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk &#124; contribs) 03:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Clyde Coffman

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails NOLYMPICS and GNG. Sources found through google are not SIGCOV, but rather a list of his sports achievements (e.g. representing the University of Kansas. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NATH - national champ in the men's pentathlon in 1935, was inducted into the Kansas Athletics Hall of Fame some years after his death, and found this and this straight away, suggesting WP:BEFORE was not done.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I have to agree and would add WP:IMPACT as another reason to keep. The NYT article and KSHB article both show a clear pass of WP:GNG and I urge the nominator to reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found and clear significance. --Michig (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per the above. Some of these Olympic nominations are just ridiculous. StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the references demonstrate WP:SIGCOV.

BilledMammal (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt Wikipedians will buy into the idea that a source doesn't count because it doesn't mention where the subject was born. Besides that, the source DOES state where he was born and where he competed:  "Clyde Coffman was born in Ford in 1911 and started with the University of Kansas track and field team as a pole-vault specialist."  It further provides that he competed in the 1932 Olympics in the Decathalon.  YEEESH.  That's EXACTLY the kind of information we seek!  There is no place for such blatant bias here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was not clear. I meant that it states where he was born and what he competed in without elaborating on it; essentially, it is statistics in prose form, and so is not WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had to read it multiple times, but I see that could be interpreted and understand what you meant now.  Let me try that table (I will only use two sources) and there is clearly enough information to create the Wikipedia article:

That's my assessment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the sources amount to providing actual imdepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV doesn't really define the term in-depth coverage - however, it does provide a definition of significant coverage-- "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." Calling for such "in-depth" coverage is beyond the standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based on the available sources. Alvaldi (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find 's assessment more convincing than Paul McDonald's. Lacks significant coverage. Pilaz (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sportspeople are measured on their numerical productivity so to speak. If there are sources that give significant coverage about him through his performances, that's fine, doesn't matter if they are measuring him by numbers and that doesn't invalidate him. Sportspeople are judged on how much they score/speed etc just as businesspeople are measured on $$ and academics on how many papers/citations they get. Based on the reasoning I have seen, this implies the ludicrous notion that a person becomes more notable if there is some qualitative 'human interest' info about them eg marital status/early life/no of children. Bumbubookworm (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not my reasoning; my reasoning is that to have significant coverage we need more than basic statistics. WP:NOTDATABASE speaks to this; "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". With only basic statistics, as we have here, we cannot put the data in context - but explanations limited to his sporting career and not covering the rest of his life would address this, and thus be acceptable. BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, I think the sourcing and Kansas Athletics HOF might just get us into the gray world created in the monster RfC. Star   Mississippi  03:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: International athlete played in 1932 Summer Olympics and national pentathlon champion, passes WP:NATH. Jeni Wolf (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: In my estimation, the available sources are sufficient to meet the general guidelines for inclusion. Canadian   Paul  04:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. First off, he clearly passes WP:NATH#5, which is enough to meet WP:N's requirement that an article meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). Secondly, the athlete additionally meets WP:GNG. The biographical article written about him over twenty years after his death and the NYT Piece each give significant coverage of the individual; each article addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. We may have a short article on our hands until someone can figure out a way to look for old news articles on newspapers.com without having to go through an inordinate amount of sports tables, but there's still enough here to indicate that the person himself is notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.