Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Mayerske


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Mike Mayerske

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

No significant coverage about coach for a single season for what was then a NAIA team – fails WP:NCOLLATH. This isn't a biography, it's a statical record that duplicates the main article, List of Pittsburg State Gorillas head football coaches (so a redirect would be acceptable, though that list could be merged as well to Pittsburg State Gorillas football). Reywas92Talk 02:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 02:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is disturbing: According to the article history on 15:47, December 6, 2021‎, the nominator attempted to delete the article without discussion by replacing it with a re-direct.  And it's not the first time, as the nominator tried the same stunt at R. C. Garrison.  This shouldn't go to AFD at all, this is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the least bit disturbing: to the contrary, it's clearly in line with policy, which allows blanking-and-redirecting and lists AfD as an appropriate next step if the redirect is contested. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This is disturbing: that you have mass-produced articles pretending that the requirement for independent significant sources about them doesn't exist. I'd suggest going through them, starting with the others at List of West Virginia Tech Golden Bears head football coaches, before they're at AFD as well. Reywas92Talk 14:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about WP:NOTHING and article creation campaigns are commonplace. We create articles and improve them.  Sure, some need to be deleted.  Maybe have an article improvement campaign before choking the system with AFDs.  We've done this before... see WP:CFBWEST.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH, specifically point 5. Slywriter (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A topic does not need to meet NCOLLATH (or any other SNG) if it has met GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, he appears to meet GNG IMO, just barely, by the following sources:, , , . I also found an article on his wedding here. I might expand the article soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see significant coverage here, certainly not multiple significant sources. One is a photo as junior college player, two are routine local clippings about a position at a high school, and one is a local announcement he was named interim coach. This is ref bomb material, not notability-granting. The wedding notice is next to a description of the Whoolery family reunion and next to that, a statement of Mrs. Dale Ray Hall being "one of the lovely brides of the summer season" – not journalism, totally worthless here! Reywas92Talk 19:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "This is ref bomb material", what are you talking about? My view of "ref bomb material" would be mass listing refs after a sentence, not using a single ref to verify the information that precedes it. I also didn't say that his wedding shows notability, I was just listing what I found. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Short blurb about being a non-notable junior college athlete plus short blurbs about being a non-notable high school coach plus short blurb about being a non-notable interim head coach for one year still does not add up to notability. There are not multiple significant sources here. A ref bomb is not just "mass listing refs" but short refs that don't contribute to GNG, which can include single refs that verify minor details. Reywas92Talk 21:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I see we clearly have different interpretations of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, I feel I'd be wasting my time to try to explain my views to you so I will not reply further on this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, I cleanup up and expanded the article in this edit. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep additional sources look good enough to pass WP:GNG. While an "interim" head coach does not automatically achieve notability, interim coaches that recieve enough coverage to pass WP:GNG do.  Nice work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sudden, mass of nominations of coaching articles makes it difficult to dig into each on with the depth they deserve.  That said, I view this one quite differently than coaches of The Apprentice School.  The Pittsburg State Gorillas football program is one of the most prominent smaller programs of all time, having four national championships and more wins than any other program in Division II history. Cbl62 (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Would have been better if this user hadn't created hundreds of article with zero sources of any depth in the first place, under the mistaken belief that college coaches are inherently notable. In fact, most of the articles I just nominated were mass-created on the same day, so the issue is there not here. The year he was interim coach, this program was still in NAIA and I don't think the record in DII has any bearing. Reywas92Talk 14:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unture. When the article was created there was one source and not zero.  The original source (which is now deleted from the web) contained a good amount of information about the subject, more than enough to create the article without any original research.  the article was created in an article creation campaign and had peer review under the college football project.  This was a good faith article creation.  While I would stipulate that my comments here are not a reason to keep the article, I also believe it is important to state that the nominator's comments above are not a reason to delete.  I resent the implication that everything wrong with Wikipedia is somehow "my fault" because I created articles.  We've gone through this before:  see WP:CFBWEST.--Paul McDonald (talk)
 * Untrue. I said "zero sources of any depth", not "zero sources". The one citation (archived) is good information for List of Pittsburg State Gorillas head football coaches, it is not substantive biographical information about the subject. I did not say this was bad faith, but it was under the incorrect assumption that all head coaches are automatically notable. It is your fault that this article – and hundreds of others – was created without significant coverage from multiple in-depth sources, just duplicating the statistics in the list without notable personal details, but I make no implication that this extends to "everything wrong with Wikipedia". My comments above are a reason to delete, because I do not believe the sources are significant coverage that establishes notability for an interim coach at the lowest level of college play. Reywas92Talk 16:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see this as Overzealous deletion based on a simple disagreement. Even if you are correct, mass AFDs and personal attacks are not the best solution.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per expansion and sourcing by BeanieFan11. I see enough to pass GNG. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep after BeanieFan's expansion. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I previously questioned the notability of Mayerske at Talk:Mike Mayerske; this was after expanding the article on Bruce Polen, his immediate predecessor. It was entirely reasonable to redirect the article as written at the time; I noticed and I took no action. While the expanded article is much superior, none of the sources found thus far (and I ran across a number of them in 2020) amount to significant coverage. I think it's a reasonable presumption that such sources do exist though. I reached out to Pittsburg State earlier this year and they kindly provided scans of four football programs from 1984. They do show Mayerske and his staff, but unfortunately do not contain any potted biographies or anything like that. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a close case on the sufficiency of the WP:SIGCOV. In this case, I err on the "keep" side because of the prominence of Pittsburg State as one of the elite smaller-college programs over the last 60+ years. And Mayerske was head coach of that program for a full season; it's not like he was just interim coach for a game or two. Cbl62 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with others that the sources offered are not SIGCOV; and while there may be coverage in local offline archives somewhere, there also may not be, so I don't see why a standalone article based on biographical minutiae and WP:INHERITED notability is in line with our PAGs. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG per significant coverage, in my opinion. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 00:20, 10 December 2021 (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.