Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Hughs


 * 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Harold Hughs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence could be found that Hughs meets WP:BIO. No reliable independent sources give him serious attention apparently. Fram (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete subject fails WP:GNG and sources like this aren't independent of the subject. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete College football coaches are not inherently notable. Especially when they run so few games. I hate to see the deletion of articles like this at one level because it adds even more to Wikipedia's presentism, but there is no sign of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Link rot is not a reason to delete an article, and saying a source not used in the article isn't good enough is a classic straw man argument and should not be used. Head college football coaches are typically kept.  In 1901, Doane College competed at the highest level of the sport (college) as there were no classifications and no professional football.  See essay at WP:CFBCOACH for more reasoning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking of fallacies: linkrot is not given as a reason to delete this article, and "keep because these are normally kept" is circular reasoning. "The highest level of the sport" is not a reason to keep an article either if there is no real top level competition, just some individual, regional games. Fram (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stating that no independent reliable sources cover the subject when indeed they did but they are archived internet files could be considered link rot. It's a pre-emptive argument.  Circular reasoning would be "keep this because it should be kept" and not "keep this because others like it are normally kept" because the second one is a comparative argument.  And "highest level" is specifically named as a criteria in WP:SPORTBASIC.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, quoting WP:OUTCOMES is circular because appealing to past decisions as the logic for present decisions only re-ifies the logic of past decisions because they happened, not because they were good or right. Honestly, I struggle with anyone holding a mop that can't live with the fact that consensus changes. Link rot was never advanced as a rationale; it's a strawman you introduced to shift the goal posts (ha!) because your argument is actually WP:ILIKEIT. Your CFBCOACH essay isn't widely regarded, either. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec)Please reread SPORTBASIC: it only discussed international competitions at the highest level (meaning that even international competitions below that level are not included, never mind natioanal ones, never mind even more regional ones like here: " a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). ". Fram (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the entire section of WP:SPORTBASIC which includes the words "for example" right before the section that was quoted above.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read it. Please explain how the sentence in the example which uses term "highest level", and is clearly NOT applicable here, somehow magically can be used as justification anyway? Fram (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Simple: the phrase "for example" uses the Olympics as the highest level.  Today, there are no gridiron football games in the Olympics (and only occasionally as an exhibition sport) but that doesn't exclude any occurrence of the sport in articles on Wikipedia.  That's because it's an example.  An example is not a hard-and-fast rule.  An example requires interpretation.  Because of that, sometimes people disagree on the meaning. When that happens in AFD, each side states their case and after time a third party evaluates the case and closes the issue to the best of their ability.  AFD doesn't require you to convince me or me to convince you: we discuss and express our views to then surrender the decision to someone else.  I think that pretty much covers it, so I'll step back and leave my points where they are.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Simple: you're grasping at straws here. It's an example of an international competition at the highest level, you are extracting "highest level" and ignoring the parts that don't fit your narrative completely. "Disagreeing on the meaning" dosn't equate "ignoring what's written". The minimal requirement to be accepted as "the highest level" in sportbasic is that it is an international competition, you can't use that line but ignore that qualifier. Fram (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess this is another point where we disagree. I believe that "for example" means "a sample or similar case" and you seem to be stating that "for example" means "requirement" - is that right?  I leave it to the closer to interpret how strict that particular guideline should be applied.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, where we disagree is that you can't a line given as a "for example", and then extract one bit from that line which supports your position, while ignoring the remainder of the very same example. You literally used this as an argument to support keeping "And "highest level" is specifically named as a criteria in WP:SPORTBASIC." Which is either disingeneous, or a very poor reading of the line where that comes from. "Highest level in a major international competition" is what is "specifically named", as an example. There may be others that apply, as it is given as an example, but those others are then not specifically named. You are trying to have your cake and it, which is yet another fallacy. Fram (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Either way, I leave that final determination to the closer and its potential bearing on the outcome of this AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. My searches turned up nothing, but then I tried searching with "Hughes" as the spelling and do get some hits. I ask that this not be closed yet, to allow time for further research given that the article appears to have been created with an erroneous spelling. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Actually, I'm not finding more than passing reference of "Hughes" being the coach. Sorry I wasn't able to be more help on this one. Cbl62 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cbl62, I don't always agree with you with what constitutes significant or sufficient coverage and so on, but thank you for the rather thorough searches you do and the sources you find. Fram (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2020 (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.