Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gonnella


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul Gonnella

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable college football player, assistant coach, and minor college sports administrative functionary. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes and coaches per WP:NCOLLATH, and lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources to the satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article in its current form lacks sufficient sourcing, but a quick search does turn up a fair bit of coverage. This includes (1) this from The Boston Globe, (2) this from The Tuscaloosa News, (3)  this from the Boston Herald, (4) this, and (5) this from The Birmingham News, and (6) this from the Associated Press and North Jersey Media Group. Cbl62 (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cbl, all six listed above are WP:ROUTINE transactional coverage, exactly the sort of standard coverage generated by press releases upon the announcement of a hiring, firing or promotion of an assistant coach. We really need to take better care to require coverage that is actually significant and exceeds the threshold of ROUTINE.  Wikipedia is not a coaching directory, and there is no presumption of notability for college coordinators and primary position coaches, let alone recruiting coordinators and consultants.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I absolutely disagree with your characterization of all six listed articles as being WP:ROUTINE that have no bearing in a notability analysis. Brief one- or two-sentence announcements of hirings/firings may be WP:ROUTINE, but detailed profiles written under the byline of a reporter for a major metropolitan newspaper are not.  The assertion that the Rob Greefield's 1,500 character piece in The Boston Globe is WP:ROUTINE suggests that our understandings of WP:ROUTINE are quite dissimilar.  That said, I'm not voting "Keep" here, in part based on Paul McDonald's WP:ADV concerns noted below, as well as the parenthetical point raised below by Ravenswing.  As a legal practitioner, you know that bad facts make bad law, and because of this article's other weaknesses, this is not a good case in which to argue over the parameters of the efforts of deletionists to expand WP:ROUTINE to convert it into a broad inroad to attack sports biographies in general.  For now, it is sufficient to note my disagreement and save a broader discussion for another day. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete seems to be more WP:ADV than anything else (in addition to the others).--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect this article is autobiographical. The article is structured along the lines of a resume/CV, and the creator is an SPA account who has no edits before or after the creation of the article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be correct. That could be a reason to delete under WP:POV as neutral point of view violation.  If one shoe doesn't fit, the other likely does (not that failing WP:GNG isn't enough...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: I don't see any evidence of notability here, and Dirtlawyer's right: not only is this routine coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE, but most of those sources are based around press releases (several obviously around the same one), which likewise are explicitly debarred from use as evidence of notability. (I admit I'm also having a less-than-relevant "How great a coach can this guy be if he's had nine different employers in the last eight years?" moment.)   Ravenswing   19:21, 17 January 2016 (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.