Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Pappas


 * 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. Interviews don't count towards notability as they are a primary source so the only proffered sources have been debunked. Spartaz Humbug! 08:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

John Pappas
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I have a hard time believing that a one year head coach of an NCAA DIV 3 college's football team fulfills our general notability requirements. NCAA Div 3 is not the highest level of the sport---even in US college terms it is third tier at best. To make matters even worse, it looks as if the school only offered football for seven years so we are not talking about a powerhouse at the DIV 3 level. Similarly the coach hasn't written any books nor has he been instrumental in the field. The article typically is hit 3-5 times a day, but I suspect that most of those hits are looking for the Chairman of the Poker Player's Alliance. This notion is supported by the fact that in the days immediately following black friday the number of hits jumped to 10-25 per day. There are virtually no articles or anything that link to this article. The page history shows less than 20 edits being made in the past 3.5 years---most of them housekeeping. Despite about 8K google hits I couldn't find any reliable sources that weren't Wikipedia Mirrors or sites that did more than confirmed he existed as an NCAA DIV 3 head coach. --- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Paul McDonald (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:GNG. College head football coaches are normally considered notable, see essay at WP:CFBCOACH for details.  While there is disagreement on this at times, the essay does provide details.  Even without that, the general notability guideline would take over.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The essay does not define the policy. I'm sorry, but I do not see Division III head coaches of minor colleges as notable.  I would fully agree a head coach at a Div 1 school is by definition notable for the reasons outlined, but not Div 3.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 04:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the essay does not define the policy... the policy defines the policy. The essay provides additional reasoning that articles such as these should be kept especially when policy may be interpreted different ways.  Of course you are free to disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete until I see reliable sources that show he meets WP:GNG. A Google archive search shows only trivial mentions.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  00:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Boston Herald work for you? That's an independent reliable source. I would say the others are as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see one trivial mention from the Boston Herald and no other sources that would make Pappas pass GNG.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I Personally could live with Trivial mentions, if I believed that Division III coaches were the highest level of their sport/competition. Instead, we are dealing with coaches of football programs that generally have a total student body that numbers in the hundreds to a few thousand.  While I do believe that individual head coaches at this level may rise to notability, I do not see it as a class.  If he was a Division I head coach, then I would have no problem keeping him, even if it was for one game.  But Division III?  IMO that barrier is so low that if it were applied elsewhere, we would be completely rewriting other notability guidelines.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider this: "College" is the highest level of the amateur sport.  Players do not compete for four years in Division III and then qualify for Division II and on up the ladder.  Also, the "size" of the school student body should not matter because that is not only arbitrary, but also irrelevant.  There is more on this at WP:CFBCOACH for review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So by your standards, every Division III player is notable? Anyway, it doesn't matter what the policy you wrote says, Wikipedia's policy on this says Pappas is not notable (per WP:ATH).  Eagles 24/7 sock  (C)  17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First, we're talking about a coach not a player here--I wouldn't say that every division III player is notable--I wouldn't say that every division I player is notable. Second, WP:ATHLETE/WP:NSPORTS is "inclusive" and not "exclusive", meaning the subject can still achieve notability through other means such as the general notability guideline as described at WP:ABELINCOLN.  Third, WP:CFBCOACH is an "essay" and not "policy" -- just wanting to be clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one who brought up players who play in Division III as an argument. You're correct that if Pappas did not meet ATH (which he doesn't), then he could still meet GNG (which he also doesn't).  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider this: "College" is NOT the highest level of amateur sport. The Olympics are a clear example of a "higher" level.  But let's go with the assumption, that NCAA Div 1 football is the highest level of Amateur Football.  There is a world of difference between Division 1 football, which can be argued to be the highest level, and Division 3 football.  When was the last time that a top high school prospect chose a Division 3 football program over a Divison 1 football program?  How many football players are drafted every year from Disivion 3 football programs?  When was the last time that a Division 3 school played a Division 1 school?  When was the last time that a Division 3 school beat a Division 1 school?  My alma mater (a Div 3 school) takes pride in the fact that the last time they played Ohio State that they won... now granted that was before the  War to end all wars.  Div 3 is NOT the highest level of amateur sports.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 16:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the highest level for the age groups concerned. In 2010, five BB&N Knights footballers were signed up for Division 1 or Football Championship Subdivision schools. So clearly this coach is doing something right.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 16:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh??? I made a comment about Division 3 not being the highest level, and then you counter with "it is the highest level for the age groups concerned." NO it is not.  Division 1 is still the highest level for the age groups concerned.  Division 3 is several levels removed from the highest level.  You then start talking about the BB&N Knights---which is not a competitive school for aspiring football players, but rather the most expensive prepatory school in the nation.  You then suggest that because he had 5 students in one year sign to Division 1 or Football Championship Subdivisions (the next level down from Div 1) that their head coach in HS inherents their notability?  Notability doesn't work that way.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. His career appears to be well documented in newspapers, halls of fame, and at colleges that he has coached at. He isn't the most famous football coach in the world but he's not invisible.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 22:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The refs you have added still do not make Pappas pass WP:GNG, which is the deciding factor here since he clearly fails WP:ATH and any other notability guideline.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Halls of fame"? His 1973 high school football team that he played on was inducted into the High Schools hall of fame!  We are not talking about a team that went on to win a state or national championship, but one that did well in its district, and that the high school honored by creating its own hall of fame.  Now show me that he made it into a college/pro/coaching hall of fame as an individual, then we might be onto something.  As is, we have nothing but trivial mentions in media sources of  a high school football coach who coached one year at Division 3 (the 4th tier in football---and that's only if you consider all Div 1 schools the same tier.)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: That the CFB Wikiproject has long since stumped for coaches at every level of college football to be notable is true, but their fervent advocacy doesn't overrule the GNG or WP:ATHLETE, nor does Division III football become the "highest level" of that sport because they think it ought to be. The wording of the controlling criteria is: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: 1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record; 2. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame); 3. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Pappas meets none of these criteria, nor does he meet the GNG.  Indeed, it would be quite astonishing for a single-season Div. III coach of a team with an undistinguished record to receive national media attention, and no evidence that he did has been proffered.   Ravenswing  12:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, he has been a head coach since 1999 through 2011. Not "a single season" and his team has not only done good it has spawned a number of great football players who have worked their way up in to national teams. Moreover, he is the director of a football clinic that brings together college coaches from all over the United States to teach young footballers. He has been mentioned trivially in a number of newspapers including "out-of-state" newspapers and on the radio. He deserves more than a dismissal as a "single-season Div. III coach".  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 13:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He is a HIGH SCHOOL Head Coach. He was a Division 3 head coach for one year, and has been a HIGH SCHOOL head coach for a school known not for it's being a football powerhouse, but rather for being the most expensive prepatory school in the nation with fewer than 1000 students pre-k to 12.  There are a number of "clinics" around the country and if the clinic isn't notable, then the odds are that the director of said clinic isn't notable.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, WP:ATHLETE is a guideline and not policy. To refer to it as "controlling criteria" gives undue weight to the argument.  It's not as "hard and fast" as you are attempting to paint here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there is no other guideline or policy under which Pappas does qualify for an article, one turns to the inclusion criteria of WP:ATHLETE, which he also fails. I believe the point was that he didn't pass the GNG due to a lack of sources which didn't run afoul of WP:ROUTINE.    Ravenswing  17:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Proper heirachy: Doe he meet the policy WP:GNG---no. Does he meet the guideline WP:Athlete---no.  Does he meet the essay WikiProject College football/Notability---yes.  Between a policy/guideline/essay, which holds the least sway?--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that he is borderline WP:ATHLETE.


 * "==Amateur sports persons==
 * ===College athletes===
 * College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches ... Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team."


 * He has been quoted in out-of-state newspapers talking about rival football coaches. That's non-trivial media coverage and it is also non-game related and it is not WP:ROUTINE coverage either. Moreover, the media coverage that he has has been accumulated over a number of years and more recently the news-space that he has been getting has increased. So I think that he qualifies for WP:ATHLETE. Moreover, I think that he just meets WP:GNG mostly due to the football clinic that he setup which is attended by more than 500 footballers from more than 30 states. That's not trivial. In fact, that is notable and it has been talked about in media and blogged (also published out of the New York Times blog in the New York Times).  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 17:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the epitome of trivial/routine coverage. "Coach can you tell me about how your team played today?  Next week you'll be playing the Tin-buck-too tigers, what can you tell me about them?"  "Oh the tin-buck-to tigers are a great team with a solid head coach that likes to run up the middle, but tries to confuse you with different packages."  That is trivial routine coverage in spades---both of the coach being interviewed and described by another coach.  Again, the fact that he set up a clinic does not make him notable.  There are scores of sports clinics where the founder is not notable---just as there are scores of companies/corporations where the founder isn't notable.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't read the articles.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 18:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the articles and I see only trivial mentions. This is an article about the 1973 high school football team he was on that won a league championship, providing a quick two-paragraph blurb on Pappas and his memories of the season. This is an overview of a camp he runs, not a news article. This is the most legitimate source in the article, and it provides a quote from Pappas about a game he is about to coach. This is an overview of Pappas as an instructor at a camp. This is a trivial mention of his name, this includes a brief, trivial mention of Pappas as the successor to a long-time high school football coach. This is a trivial mention that five of Pappas' players from high school will be going to the college level. This and this state he was the coach of a high school football team for a season. This mentions a quote from Pappas talking about one of his high school football players. This and this are articles about a football camp Pappas runs. This is a trivial mention of Pappas in a featured article of Rich Fisher, and so is this.
 * Not one of these references is enough for Pappas to pass WP:GNG.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The last two that you have listed are out-of-state articles. They are not local news stories.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 20:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they are out-of-state articles, they mention Pappas trivially and not significantly, thus not meeting WP:GNG, or WP:ATH for that matter.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is also a trivial mention, as he is not a topic of the article, merely used as someone to quote.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that if The New York Times and ESPN think that he is worth quoting then they must consider him to be notable enough.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 11:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. IMO there is enough non-trivial reliable media coverage. Some sources may be questionable but as a whole there is enough. 09er (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please point out to me one instance of "non-trivial reliable media coverage"? I'm having a hard time finding anything that meets that description.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that if The New York Times and ESPN think that he is worth quoting then they must consider him to be notable enough.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 11:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not according to policy.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  23:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, and where did you come up with that interpretation of wp:N? The fact that a news reporter cites you in one or two articles, is now sufficeint grounds for an article in WP!  Local news personell are often cited, local politicians are often cited, local college professors are often cited, local police officers are cited... based upon that logic, Lisa Stauber (a home schooling blogger) deserves a wikipedia article!  I mean, she was cited by ABC News and NY Times!  Apparently she is notible enough for her own article!--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because someone disagrees with you is no reason to ridicule their position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help if they had some backing to their opinion rather than "this is what I think policy should say."  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not ridiculing their position, I am pointing out the fallacy of the argument. An argument which is not supported by policy/guidelines.  The times he has been cited in media outlet is trivial in nature.  Other people, who are clearly not notable, get cited more than Pappas has been.  He's a high school coach who had one year in Division three... which is anything but the highest level of college sports.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy is open to interpretation and at least three people believe that this is a keeper.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 23:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not pass the two relevant guidelines, WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Having looked through the references, I agree completely with Eagles 24/7 that none of them provides the "significant coverage" that is required by the GNG. As for the WP:CFBCOACH essay, well, it's an essay. The day it becomes a guideline, I will gladly change my !vote to keep, but I can't see that happening in the foreseeable future. Jenks24 (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete After a glance through the references given, I'm not seeing anything that makes him notable. Fails WP:GNG.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  19:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring two media interviews.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 14:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The two "interviews": The NYTimes is doing a story on sports injuries and somebody asks Pappas about it.  Pappas responds that high schoolers emulate the pros and gets 2 paragraphs in the article.  The two paragraphs are not about Pappas, but are trivial.  The ESPN article gives Pappas 4 paragraphs, but wait what is the subject?  The subject of the article is college prospect that Pappas coaches.  Pappas is thus being interviewed not because he himself is notable, but rather because he happens to be the coach of a player who may someday be notable.  Both are trivial and neither is about Pappas.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He was interviewed because he's a notable expert on the subject at hand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to interpret WP:N and that is not one of them.  Eagles 24/7 sock  (C)  17:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction There are many ways to interpret WP:N and that is not one of the ways that you would interpret it. Others obviously disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just like the doctor I saw today is an expert on his speciality, but that doesn't mean that he meets the expectations of notability. Pappas interviews were nothing more than one might expect from any random high school coach.  Notice, that we have no significant coverage OF John Pappas.  We have yet to see anything that provides reliable coverage of WHO John Pappas is.  We have John Pappas being asked questions about other people, but nothing ABOUT John Pappas.  Ok, John Pappas is a reliable source when it comes to opinions about a person who has just been hired to a notable university, but the potentially notable person is the coach that was hired.  Ok, John Pappas is a reliable source when it comes to opinions about a high school student who might someday be notable. Ok John pappas is a reliable source, just as any other High School Coach/Teacher/Youth Director or anybody else who works with kids when it comes to saying, "High schoolers will emulate what they see in the professional ranks."  That is not a notable position, you can call ANYBODY who works with high schoolers and get similar quotes... that doesn't make him wp:n--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 05:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not pass WP:NSPORTS. Also does not meet WP:GNG as coverage is WP:ROUTINE. The coach is WP:Run-of-the-mill. —Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 20 May 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.