Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coaching tree


 * 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) Logan Talk Contributions 01:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Coaching tree

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research, WP:NEO, two sources the espn source doesn't mention anything about a coaching tree, the other one is just an opinion piece on a website i doubt it's reliable. Ibluffsocall (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the fence. Delete. A few mentions of the word do not make it an encyclopedic subject. Maybe this can be moved to Wiktionary, but it has no place here. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is hardly a neologism, and has been cited in thousands of news articles. Please, read WP:BEFORE if you have not done so yet. Just because an article is ugly now, doesn't mean it can't be fixed. WP:AFD is not for fixing articles. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm Bearian, it seems that you have more than a few mentions there. As much as I hate to agree with you (haha), I am going back on the fence. (You called in the Rescue Squad, so you don't need me, I think.) Should we also have a redirect for Coaching Acorn? Drmies (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The news search does prove it is a real thing, and quite a notable thing since they discuss various coaching trees in news articles.  D r e a m Focus  07:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, the RescueSquad's recurrent argument is that "x number of Google hits=it is a notable topic", even if few or none of those hits actually explain what the supposed subject, beyond merely naming or mentioning it. I don't think it's that simple, but to each their own. Drmies (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to use common sense. You look through the results.  If something is covered in the media then its notable.   D r e a m Focus  19:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep For example, Coaching trees are discussed in John C. Maxwell's book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership in the chapter on "The Law of Reproduction" when he covers the coaching trees of Bill Walsh and Tom Landry. He noted that half of the active NFL coaches the year of publication (1998) could be traced to these two.  This is way more than just fancruft, this is serious study.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an encyclopedic topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   spout 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to be enough sources to create an encyclopedic article. Snotty Wong   spout 20:13, 25 January 2011 (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.