Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 16:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Don Lee (college football)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable minor college football coach, no substantive, independent articles about him, fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:ATHLETE even on the broadest measure (his head coaching career has been in NAIA, not at the "highest level of amateur sports"). See prior AfDs at Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Articles for deletion/Max Holm, Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach) and Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel.

I am also nominating the following related articles, also for non-notable head coaches at Belhaven College. A fourth coach has gone on to coach Division I football, and is not being nominated at this time:

 Ravenswing  13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I took the liberty to remove Walter J. West from the above list because the article has been restored as meeting WP:ATHLETE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, as it seems, he played in the NFL, thus qualifying as having played in a "fully professional" league.   Ravenswing  23:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. While I expect there's probably a token level of verifiability here, there is no real substantial notability, and there seems to be a growing level of precedent that articles of this type are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE for not coaching at the highest level of amateur sport. -Djsasso (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that not coaching at the highest level isn't reason for deletion. Please see WP:BIO...  If he had done so, it would be a reason for inclusion.  Hobit (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * keep additional sources, significant as second African American coach in history of conference, and "college" is the highest level of the amateur sport (comments above show a bias against the NAIA). One does not compete for four years in the NAIA and then "move up" to NCAA of any division.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The NCAA, which has established "Division I," "Division I-AA", "Division II" and "Division III," seems to disagree with you; NAIA competition is a cut below that. (If citing the widely acknowledged fact that NAIA is the lowest level of intercollegiate play for four-year schools constitutes "bias," I'm certainly guilty!) Other sources have indeed been added to the Lee article, but the vast majority being trivial mentions confirming that yes, he is indeed the Belhaven College coach (an undisputed fact for which no fewer than four cites were added in the last couple of hours).  One article was added from a small town weekly that goes a little more indepth ... but is about Lee's wife.   Ravenswing  17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply if the NAIA was "below" the NCAA, then a player could play for four years at the NAIA level and then "move up" to NCAA but that is against all regulations in the two governing bodies. Both the NAIA and NCAA recognize that four years of college football play constitute the highest level of amateur sports competition in American football.  Granted NCAA Div I FBS is more "popular" and more "wealthy" but "popular" does not necessarily mean "notable".--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Being below does not mean there is the ability to move up, being below means that you are not playing with the best of the best. The whole point of the "highest level of amateur competition" is that the players involved are the best in the world. Not the best at their particular level. -Djsasso (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And you can't move up after playing four years of Division III either; what's your point? Different sports and organizations have different strictures (for instance, the "highest level" of amateur play in hockey isn't college hockey but major junior), but none of that, nor any measures of wealth or popularity, obscure the universally recognized fact that your average Division I team's second stringers can and will beat the brains out of your average Division III team.  Are you seriously contending otherwise?    Ravenswing  18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply That is my point: that the highest level of amatuer American football is college football, be it NAIA, NCAA DIV III, NCAA DIV II, NCAA DIV I FCS, or NCAA DIV I FBS.  I know, I know, you and others disagree...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you win explicit consensus for that view, then obviously that would change things.   Ravenswing  20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind the fact that there is a very strong opinion by many editors that Div-1 doesn't even make the cut because of the existance of professional. You can't just lump all college levels in and say college football is the highest level, college football is divided into levels, just like junior hockey is in hockey for example. They are all still junior hockey, but the skill levels are different. Highest level is in reguards to higest skill level, not "as far as you can go level" -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that not only we can consider all college to be the highest level, but that we must. Why?  Well, 1)  There is no specific "skill division" from the governing bodies in question:  one doesn't "try out" at the NCAA headquarters and they say "you can't play here, try the NAIA or maybe Div III" 2) while any player may not get a scholarship at a Div I school---or make the team at a Div I school, there are many players who choose NAIA or DIV III for their reasons when they had the option to play at a "larger" school  3)  The partitions between the NCAA divisions are based not on skill level of the players or teams, but by factors such as number of sports at the school, enrollment, and amount of scholarship money available.  4)  The NAIA (at least in the past) did not have as stringent of academic policies as the NCAA and therefore there were many players that went to the NAIA by choice to gather more playing time and exposure for the NFL draft 5) Players from lower levels are drafted into the NFL after completion 6) In the past (and some would argue yet today) racism played a huge picture--the historically black colleges and universities were often held in "lower esteem" by the press simply because of race,  7) "the fact that there is a very strong opinion by many editors that Div-1 doesn't even make the cut because of the existance of professional" is addressed at the essay WikiProject College football/Amateur, 8) "your average Division I team's second stringers can and will beat the brains out of your average Division III team" is a generalization, blanket point-of-view that has been proven incorrect through both junior varsity and varsity games at the collegiate level when teams play across divisions and even when NAIA teams play NCAA teams (both now and in the past) 9) even if #8 were true, the "quality" of the play is not the issue, but the "level" of the play.  If we went exclusively on "quality" there would be several professional teams that would be cut AND that would violate WP:NPOV because the editors would be making judgements about the quality of play.  Oh, my I'm getting tired of making points here...--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No one compels you to do so, but you're still arguing against all consensus, on Wikipedia and otherwise, and fact. For instance, let's take the 2008 NFL Draft. Out of the 252 players drafted, only five came from Division I-AA (the first at #66), five from Division II (the highest at #140), and two from Division III (the highest at #203).  That's the top sixty-five players, and 240 out of 252, from Division I schools.  Not a single NAIA player was drafted.  Let's move ten years back to the 1998 NFL Draft.  Once again, not a single NAIA player was drafted, and it's a near-Division I clean sweep; only four players through the first four rounds were from I-AA or Division II schools.  If there's anyone out there other than you who think that NAIA play is comparable to Division I play, they're not NFL general managers or scouts.    Ravenswing  18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave with this thought: There are NAIA players that make it to the NFL, and not all are drafted--some by free agency, some go through CFL or indoor leagues first.  And certainly way more NFL drafts come from NCAA Div I.  But if that's the rule, then we can remove the academy schools because none of their players enter the NFL draft... at least, not until they have fulfilled their service requirement.  And some top college football palyers do not enter the NFL draft but instead pursue other interests.  All I'm saying is that college is the top amateur level.  Wanna hone it to just NCAA Div I FBS?  Okay, how about the top conferences then--say the BCS shoe-ins... or maybe just the teams that win the top conferences... or maybe just the national champoinship team.  We can go either way on this, and all I'm saying is make it simple--college football is the highest level of expression of the amatuer sport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It really blows my mind that you can't see there is a quality difference, its not hard to understand that the best players get offered scholarships etc to the Div-1 schools therefore making the quality of play higher in Div-1 because most of the best players go that way. There is no point arguing with you about though because its clear you won't change your mind. -Djsasso (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that there wasn't a quality difference, I said that it doesn't matter if there is or is not a quality difference because that quality is a point-of-view, which Wikipedia works so hard to avoid. Also, WP:ATHLETE says nothing about "quality of play" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And that is where your argument is flawed, the level difference is provable, even the naming scheme itself supports it. The ultimate highest level one can achieve is to play Division-1 ball. The whole point behind that part of WP:ATHLETE says the highest level of amateur sport, in otherwards the point were you cannot find better competition. No one in their right mind would say that playing in the lowest level of college ball is reaching the pinnacle of amateur football. -Djsasso (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is not flawed, merely your understanding of it. And that's likely my fault for not explaining it well enough.  But if I give too much detail, I get chastaised.  Anyway, you are confusing "quality of play" with "level of play"--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you equate failure to agree with you with failure to understand you? We understand you just fine.  That being said, you're making a crucial error in claiming that Wikipedia's NPOV rule means we can't cite a subjective qualitative difference.  It's true that we cannot make something up and declare it to be a fact.  Want to bet I can't come up with fifty reliable sources saying, indeed, that Division I college football is the highest possible level of college play?  (Hell, I bet I could come up with five hundred.)    Ravenswing  01:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Because even in your last paragraph, you fail to express an accurate response to the argument.  If you understood the argument, you wouldn't be discussing anything about "quality of play" because that is not the argument I am making.  Instead of responding to my argument (that all of college is the same "level"), you are responding with a different argument (that Div I is separate from NAIA because of quality of play).  This is Ignoratio elenchi or "Irrelevant conclusion" which is "the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question."  I concede that the quality of play at Div I is higher than at NAIA.  What I do not concede is that they are different levels, primarily because the governing bodies do not concede that they are different levels and this is reinforced based on the eligibility requirements of 4 years of college football play.--Paul McDonald (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fail to express an "accurate" response to the argument? We are under no misimpression as to what your oft-repeated argument is.  What's inaccurate with "Neither we, nor the outside world in general, agree with you," and what's so starkly incomprehensible with "And here's some evidence for that assertion"?   Ravenswing  04:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's inaccurate because you keep arguing over quality of play, and that isn't the measure of which I speak.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * more stuff please consider recent changes for Norman Joseph--several very prestigious accomplishments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly does seem that Joseph's teams have been quite successful in NAIA ranks, but then again, someone must win games down there. It's still not the highest level of amateur play in football.    Ravenswing  21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Please read the article. San José State University is not NAIA but Division I NCAA, where he became noted as one of the best offensive minds in the country.
 * Reply: Please read the source. Joseph was not the head coach at San Jose State, but the offensive coordinator, and the quote - in an uncredited team preview on an unaffiliated website - is "He also turned San Jose State into one of the best offensive teams in the country during his two years as their offensive coordinator."   Ravenswing  20:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's a pretty good source. The first 3.5 paragraphs are about Joseph and really only about him.  That's significant coverage in my book.  At that's just one of the sources.  IMO, it meets WP:BIO and WP:N.  Hobit (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all Each appears to meet the GNG. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I'm not seeing how WP:BIO isn't met as this seems true for all of the above. Help? Hobit (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. The general notability criterion elaborates: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive."  Of the independent, reliable links about Lee that are actually accessible, he is the subject of none of them.  An article about the most recent football game quoting him is neither about him nor constitutes substantive, detailed coverage of him.    Ravenswing  14:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming it's the VSN articles you consider to be not reliable? I'd say that given "The NAIA supports VSN; however, the views expressed through the Victory Sports Network, it's web sites or other media operated by VSN are not those of the NAIA or its national office." it is a close call.  They claim editorial independence.  Given the VSN articles, GNG is trivially met.  Further, it is reasonable to expect that local (and fully independent) newspapers would have coverage about the local coach.  Certainly our local coaches all have had write ups on them.... I'll stay with the keep. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mm, no, I don't have a problem with the VSN links; it's not that they're not reliable. It's that they cover Lee's team, not Lee himself.  GNG can't be "trivially met"; either the coverage "address[es] the subject directly in detail" or GNG is not met.    Ravenswing  20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC) \
 * Did you see ? It is an article almost purely about him and his family. Hobit (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's the one I previously cited as being about his wife's medical problems.    Ravenswing  04:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's about how he deals with coaching and having a wife with said medical problems. I mean the only reason the article is there is because _he_ does what he does. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Highsmith and Lee. These coaches are simply not notable enough even in their own level of sports, and RGT outlines some serious problems with the sources, as he has done before, on the articles (Haslam et al.) he referenced. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all per Paul McDonald. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Starblind and Drmies. Unfortunately, the CFB notability standards are so far below the consensus at WP:BIO that way too many people pass. I appreciate Paulmcdonald's passion to retain the articles, but he should put his energy into ensuring that those few coaches who are genuinely notable have their articles kept. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the first part of WP:BIO seems met. Again, http://www.victorysportsnetwork.com/article.php?articleID=1546 looks good to me, and the rest are certainly "multiple". Hobit (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.   —Paul McDonald (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment up to 23 sources now, plus 7 more on the talk page to review for potential inclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/question all this time, I thought notability was a policy. The pages all seem to say it is only a guideline, like Notability (people) which includes WP:ATHLETE... If it isn't policy, why all the fuss? (am I reading it right?)  I get chewed out for using a project notability essay... what gives?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Surely you do not have difficulty telling the difference between "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow" and "This page is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's." That aside, the horde of new sources are just more and more trivial mentions, the same that accumulate like barnacles on any sports team, and just seem like an attempt to bury the issue under a giant mass.  Just like three times zero still equals zero, twenty-three times zero isn't any larger.  There is still not one single independent source that is a biographical article about Lee ... not about his wife, not about a player he's coached, not about his team, not about the prospects for the (then current) season, not a mere reiteration of won-loss statistics or how well Belhaven did in last weekend's game.   Ravenswing  04:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just asked a question, I wasn't looking for ridicule. The way I see it, WP:ATHLETE is a generally accepted but unofficial standard by a large group of people who are not close to the topic and have not discussed it in length, where WP:CFBN is a generally accepted but unofficial standard by a small group of people who are close to the topic and have discussed it in length.  As to the "horde" of new "barnacle" articles, why in the world would not such a large assortment of articles from so many different sources not be an indicator of notability?  Gobs upon gobs of other articles on Wikipedia have far less sources yet have remained after AfD discussions.  And this isn't an "other stuff exists" argument, this is "other stuff exists and has remained through AfD" which is another way of asking, are you sure that the real reason you want this deleted is not just simply because you don't like it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all as Paul Mcdonald--Parthian Scribe (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2008 (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.