Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Duax


 * 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: Coverage sufficient to consider the subject notable based on sources identified by and their subsequent expansion of the article, which also swayed many to change their original delete !votes. —Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Robert Duax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced biography of a small city-mayor and basketball coach from a very small school who only coached for one season. No evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:NCOLLATH. clpo13(talk) 09:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence Duax has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable small-town mayor and small college basketball coach. No evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, and I am unaware of any applicable specific notability guideline whose criteria the subject satisfies.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per all. Doesn't meet GNG. For the record, he is also a small college football coach (coached both sports at St. Ambrose). Rikster2 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Changing vote to Keep per new sources found by User:Cbl62. Nice work, Cbl! Rikster2 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (and see this list of "contributions"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if there's one guideline I'd change on Wikipedia, it'd be to require a valid reason to remove a PROD. Seems like a waste of action, especially since WP is short on moderators. Rikster2 (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I read DGG and Zagalejo's comments below with interest. I'd never heard of Davenport but it does indeed seem of moderate size. So I'm willing to be persuaded. But I note that the source cited for the claim that he was a mayor is an obituary, and that all this says about the matter is "Mr. Duax had been involved with city politics, serving two terms as alderman, two terms as county supervisor of Scott County and one term, in 1976 and 1977, as mayor of the city of Davenport." If even his obituary can't add something like "His tenure will be remembered for [blah blah]", then I wonder about his notability. (I do, however, appreciate his appreciation of sewerage.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Davenport, Iowa isn't that small; the current mayor has an article. I'm not sure why Duax's mayorship isn't presented as his primary claim to fame, but I'm sure it must have been covered by 1970s newspapers. (This is admittedly very trivial, but I'll link to it for its entertainment value.) Zagal e jo^^^ 04:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Zags, that's hilarious: the City of Davenport invited "Ed Norton" to help inaugurate the city's new sewer program. I can still hear Jackie Gleason bellowing "One of these days, Norton . . . pow, right in the kisser!"  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Zagal e jo^^^ 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Davenport has a population of 97,000 people in 1970. We normally keep  articles on all mayors of cities with populations > 100,000. (50,000-1000,000) is a  disputed zone and some are kept. Under 50,000, almost never. 97,000 is close enough. Of course, whoever wrote the article didn;t realize that would be the key factor, notthe coaching, so ther article needs re-organizing.   DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 *  Week delete/redirect/merge to List of mayors of Davenport, Iowa now Week Keep. While I see merit in User:DGG's article, I cannot find any other source outside an obituary, and I am afraid this would be an eternal stub. I'd rather redirect/merge it to List of mayors of Davenport, Iowa. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not passionate either way about this subject, but shouldn't GNG still need to be demonstrated to keep an article for a mayor of a city over 100,000 residents? I am not aware of any SSG that supersedes GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Eternal stub suppose the article is an "eternal stub" -- that is no reason to delete the article. A stub article is a valid article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed my vote; it's now large enough not to need merger, so I guess we can keep it, as it is a borderline case. Good job rescuing the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Davenport is hardly a "small town", as incorrectly asserted above.  With a Census estimated population over 100,000, it is the lead city in the Quad Cities metropolitan area, which has population of nearly half a million.  A quick search (including newspapers.com) turned up a number of sources, and I've added some to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Cbl62 - In my opinion those sources are not sufficient to demonstrate GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Close call IMO, but I tend to be more lenient for individuals whose notoriety dates to the 1930s to 1950s, a period when it's much more difficult to find sources online. Cbl62 (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I see two independent paths to notability here. First, we typically find that head college football coaches of four-year programs tend to pass WP:GNG as outlined in WP:CFBCOACH essay and we can see in the Chicago Tribune article as n example.  Second, the mayor of a city of that size also tends to generate enough press to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends. Some unquestionably do, and say it on their face, such as WP:PROF, which is explicitly an alternative. Some common practices do, and it is widely accepted, as for high schools. Some subguidelines do, and that's widely accepted also: olympic athletes, of recordings that are listed in one of a specific list of charts. National elected official is another one that is universally accepted. WP:N says GNG is the usual guideline--it explicitly says it is not the only one.  DGG ( talk ) 11:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How is that Chicago Trib blurb an "article?" It's a couple of sentence transactional blurb. That's not significant coverage. Rikster2 (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no real definition of a "blurb" article and no specific requirement about length of any article that I can find in Wikipedia, I can only guess that it is something that Rickster2 made up. If not, please provide a link.  The subject of this Wikipedia article is the subject of the article in the Tribune.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  Please note that GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish notability.  And, no, the Chicago Tribune article in question does not constitute significant coverage.  Not even close; it is WP:ROUTINE transactional coverage.  The burden is on "keep" proponents to demonstrate that significant coverage exists, not on "delete" !voters to prove the negative. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's more than a trivial mention and actually is the main topic. The coverage provided has allowed the article to be written, there is no original research that I can find. Therefore, the definition of "significant coverage" is actually met per the Wikipedia definition in GNG.  "Significant coverage" does not refer to size of source article, but to the content of the source in relation to the Wikipedia article.  And that test is met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Quoting PaulMcd: "'Significant coverage' does not refer to size of source article, but to the content of the source in relation to the Wikipedia article." Above, Paul, you suggest that Rikster2 has invented his own standard.  In answer, well, you just did exactly that; you invented your own standard out of whole cloth.  The quoted element of GNG says "significant coverage" is that which covers the subject "in detail".  The linked Chicago Tribune article does not cover the subject in detail.  Not even close.  Period.  We need to stop distorting the obvious and intended meanings of the notability guidelines because someone thinks a particular obscure subject is "important" to their way of thinking -- even though significant coverage of the subject does not exist.  And, of course, you ignore the two key words, which were pointedly bolded for your benefit: "in detail".  So, I will repeat it one more time: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail."  This coverage does not.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Details in just the Tribune article: (1) Name, (2) previous job, (3) future job, (4) sport, (5) who he is replacing and (6) where his replacement is going, (7) his future boss happens to be who he is replacing, (8) his age, (9) where he went to high school, (10) and how his teams did the previous two years in the playoffs.  That's ten significant details pertinent to the Wikipedia article.  I've invented nothing, I'm reading from the guideline and the source cited.  The definition of "significant coverage" is given to us by GNG and that's the definition we should use.   I've shown how the coverage meets that standard--that at least this one article addresses the subject directly and in detail.  All you've done is say that it doesn't but you give no reason why to support.  You then put emphasis on your argument by inserting phrases like "not even close" and "period" -- and these words are often influential, but they are not a reason to delete.  I suppose you could write it in bold and use a bigger font, but that still would not be a reason to delete.  WHY do you think this article and its content does not meet the standard?  Just saying it doesn't make the standard doesn't make it so.  Please proved support details lest we end up in WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a proper GNG analysis is fairly nuanced and ends up in a gray zone. On the one hand, sports Wikipedians have all encountered routine transactional announcements, one-liners indicating that an athlete or coach has been hired, fired, signed, released, traded, placed on disabled list, etc.  Such one-line announcements don't constitute the sort of coverage we need under GNG.  The Chicago Tribune article, as Paul notes above, is not a one-line transactional announcement and instead provides some meaningful background information and context.  On the other hand, we've also all seen feature stories on highly notable coaches and athletes.  That is the type of coverage that we generally hope for in a GNG analysis.  The Trib piece falls short of that; it is somewhere in the middle.  Having researched a ton of athletes from the pre-Internet age, I have found that one-paragraph pieces like this are quite common; unlike today's mass media age, in-depth feature stories during the first several decades of the 20th century were generally reserved for the coach/athlete who was a true star.  For a large percentage of the MLB and NFL players of the 1900s to 1950s, you will not find coverage more extensive than a paragraph or two.  The analysis in Mr. Duax's case is rendered all the more difficult because the local papers from the Quad Cities are likely to be the richest source of information, and they are not available on-line for the 1930s through the 1970s, which was Duax's period of significance.  I see this as a close and hard case under GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is my idea of a real news article about a coach transaction. And, yes, they wrote them like that then too for coaches that were notable. I know because I've written plenty of college athlete and coach articles from that era and earlier. The Trib thing is a blurb on the back of the sports pages basically fulfilling a newspapers' obligation to be the local publication of record, it's not even a marriage announcement or a rotary club meeting announcement and those are in papers, too. Rikster2 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We may be veering off on a tangent, but it's nevertheless a useful discussion. The example you gave is from an entirely different media era, i.e., 2015. I, too, have researched many (hundreds) of athletes and coaches from the first several decades of the 20th century, and you don't generally find lengthy, in-depth feature stories even at the NFL and MLB  level, unless the individual was a star. My perspective is that a GNG analysis has to be sensitive to the fact that (1) the type of coverage for non-star athletes/coaches differed in the 1910s to 1950s, and (2) most of it is not readily accessible on-line.  For these reasons, I tend to be tougher on modern athletes/coaches in terms of what I expect to see.  Even with that being said, I remain perched on the fence with respect to Duax. I just can't agree that the suggestion that this is a clear-cut or easy case of failure to satisfy GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, here's one from 1962 for a smaller school. How do we determine if it's lack of currently available sources or lack of coverage? Rikster2 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your question is a good one. I think that we still need to have significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, but where it is clear that the newspapers from the relevant media market(s) are not available on-line, I would be a bit more lenient in terms of what types of coverage will suffice. For example, an obstacle I often face is that none of the Detroit area newspapers are on-line (even by subscription) from 1923 through the 1980s. Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment could those of you arguing "keep" please demonstrate that the subject meets GNG? All of the subject-specific notability guidelines are there to indicate subjects that will most likely meet GNG. I think the primary argument here is that this subject may not. Rikster2 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence, but a lot of coverage from the 1950s is not available on-line. In particular, none of the newspapers from the Quad Cities are on-line from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Examples of coverage regarding Duax that are on-line include: (1) this obituary from the Quad City Times in 1997, (2) this shorter piece from the Chicago Tribune, (3) this from the Muscatine Journal, (4) this from the Carrol Daily Times Herald, (5) this and (6) this from the Muscatine Journal and News-Tribune, and (7) this from the The Mount Pleasant News. Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep There appears to be enough reliable sources for the claims made in the article. Davenport, Iowa has a mayor-council form of government, and every indication is that the subject was elected (rather than appointed to the position). My assumption is that there would be records in the local papers of his campaign in 1975, providing more information about the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Moving off the fence and falling to the keep side.  As I've said above, a close call, but he has notability as a college coach and mayor in the Quad Cities area.  The Quad Cities newspapers are not available on-line during Duax's period of significance, but I assume those papers had substantial coverage of Duax's coaching and mayoral efforts.  This assumption is bolstered by the fact that he has had significant coverage in media outlets outside of the Quad Cities, as referenced in my comment above.  Factoring all this into the calculus, I am persuaded that Mr. Duax satisfies WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Prove it: nothing linked above rises to the level of significant coverage. We don't assume that coverage exists.  Doing so defeats the entire purpose of having the WP:GNG standard and going through the AfD analysis, which requires that significant coverage exist, and the burden is on "keep" !voters to demonstrate that it does.  In the absence of coverage, notability fails.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The coverage that has been found and referenced above is borderline but adequate under GNG. My assertion that additional coverage exists is not in the least a stretch or baseless speculation.  Unfortunately, the media outlets that would give the most significant coverage to a mayor and college coach in the Quad Cities are not available on-line for the years of Mr. Duax's notability.  In a properly nuanced GNG analysis, it is entirely appropriate IMO to note that additional significant coverage is certain to exist in the Quad Cities newspapers.  Turning a blind eye to this obvious reality is a disservice to our effort to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Further Even Notability is a guideline and not policy. The demand to "prove it" reminds me of the link WP:PROVEIT which does go to a policy, but that is one on article content and not notability of the subject.  However, it seems that some arguments are really hanging their hat on WP:GNG and what I would consider to be a more strict interpretation of that guideline.  That's fair, others can do that.  In this particular case, I'll roll back to another Wikipedia policy:  Ignore all rules:  "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."  It seems to me that this strict interpretation of WP:GNG is indeed preventing us from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia.  So I'm leaning on ignore, keep it, and move on to something else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have placed a call to the archivist at the Davenport Public Library. She confirmed that none of the Quad Cities newspapers from the period of interest have not been digitized, making it difficult to access published sources from the era.  While a research fee would be required for in-depth research, she has agreed gratis to take a quick look at resources they have available.  She may also be able to check with the archivist at St. Ambrose.  Accordingly, it may make sense to re-list this AfD to see what the archivists are able to come up with.  Thanks.  Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And I certainly would have no objections to re-listing this AfD under those circumstances. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Further digging has turned up sources asserting that Duax invented the full-court press, with Dean Smith and John Wooden adopting the strategy in the 1960s. I added a couple sources on this to the article, and will do further research on this point.  If correct, his status as the inventor of a major element of basketball strategy significantly advances the notability analysis. Cbl62 (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the claim that Duax invented the full-court press highly dubious and the linked sources (at least the one I can access from the article) doesn't seem all that reliable. Most credit either Gene Johnson with its invention when he was coach of the McPherson Globe Refiners in the AAU of the twenties and thirties, Frank Keaney who popularized it at Rhode Island in the 30s and 40s or John McLendon, who coached what is now NC Central University in the 40s. Rikster2 (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Before you accept that claim at face value, you may want to read our Wikipedia articles about Gene Johnson and the full-court press. Johnson is credited with inventing the press two decades before Duax became a head coach, and nearly three decades before dean Smith and John Wooden popularized it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do. As we both know, claims of "invention" in sports are often difficult to pin down, with many "inventions" being evolutionary rather than sudden inventions. Cbl62 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case though, Johnson and Keaney were very well known for the press long before Duax took the reigns at St. Ambrose though. he may have been an early adopter, but no way he invented it. Here's Keaney's basketball HOF profile with a mention of his full court style. Here's Johnson's Kansas Sports HOF profile claiming he invented it. Rikster2 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A search of newspapers.com suggests the term first came into usage in the late 1930s. The fact that there are claims that multiple people invented the strategy is not surprising. Having been involved in prior discussions of who invented the forward pass, I've concluded that these assertions are not easily verified.  Assertions from University athletic departments trying to promote their alumni are particularly untrustworthy.  Duax was actually a coach for many years before arriving at St. Ambrose, working at high schools in Indiana and Illinois (by 1942 at the latest) throughout the 1940s.  In any event, I've added language to the article qualifying the assertion. Cbl62 (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The source clearly says "St. Ambrose's Duax." Cbl62 - I have read over a hundred books on basketball history and have never heard of him. The blog you have linked isn't that credible IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason to delete. It is one of many specific arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this - the one source making the claim is a blog with very dubious reliability and there is ample evidence from highly reliable sources that others created the system decades before this guy supposedly did. I appreciate you want to keep this article, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a place making claims that on the surface appear false. Rikster2 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I am certainly open to changing my vote to keep once I review the article again with the new info. But you need to stop questioning my motives. We are disagreeing so far, but that doesn't mean I am doing anything below board. Rikster2 (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rik, I don't question your motives or in any way believe you were doing anything below board. I apologize if anything I said gave that impression. Anyone looking at the article in its original unsourced and poorly written state would have reasonably questioned Duax's notability. The article has now been completely written and is sourced with articles containing significant coverage in which Duax is the principal subject. Sometime, we become entrenched in a position once a stand has been taken, and I'm simply hoping that people can now take a second look with an open mind. Cbl62 (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't directed at you, it was for Paul McDonald who has now in two separate places questioned my intent. That isn't productive and does not assume good faith. Rikster2 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I had no intent to question your intent. I was responding to your comment that you didn't know who it was and therefore the subject wasn't notable.  That's a stretch, and that's why we have WP:IDONTKNOWIT.  Previously you called an article a "blurb" and my response was that we don't really have a uniform definition of what a "blurb" is.  I don't think you're acting in bad faith, I just find two your points outside the realm of the topic with no real way to affix them anyplace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And I didn't say he wasn't notable because I've never heard of him, I was just giving context that I, as opposed to some of you guys who focus almost exclusively on football, have some background. My takeaway point was that the source (have you seen it?) wasn't credible. You and I disagree that the Trib piece is significant coverage - but you basically said I made up my definition. Of course I have my interpretation of which sources are credible and which aren't - they just happen to be a bit different than yours. Ease up, dude, like I said I am not locked into delete given the new sourcing but do YOU honestly believe this dude invented the full-court press? Rikster2 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the full-court press issue. I do know that generally we keep articles on head college football coaches at 4-year schools, and generally we keep articles about mayors of towns of this size.  Sometimes we have a hard time finding on-line source but it is rare that we do not find offline sources, it just takes some time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And my going-in position is that all head football (and basketball, but football is higher profile) coaches are NOT inherently notable and when there is a borderline case like this, I want to see the proof. You and I came into this discussion with different lenses, neither of us made s$#t up for the discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's proof you want, please investigate the 28 sources in the article (in its current state). I am not clear on what your other comments bring to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and your comment just crystalizes everything. I will look at the sources, and evaluate again - as I said, big guy. Rikster2 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete We have to have some standards. Unfortunately, this individual really has no significance. Some hyper-local newspaper coverage of a Mayor or school coach is simply not enough to meet WP:GNG. To be honest, I actually find it rather extraordinary some editors would suggest a school coach could ever be so notable as to warrant a BIO AusLondonder (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why we go through the AfD exercise and the GNG analysis, because none of this actually based on the concept of "importance". It's based on actual coverage in independent mainstream sources, not my sense of the subject's importance, your sense of importance, or Paulmconald's sense of importance.  The Wikipedia concept of notability per GNG and the spin-off specific notability guidelines, based on the demonstrated existence of significant coverage, has been the fundamental determinant of whether Wikipedia articles stay or go for most of the last decade.  Without that concept of notability, we really have nothing more than unsupported individual opinions, or the anarchy of Ignore All Rules in every discussion.  In the absence of a paid editorial staff that makes decisions as to what subjects are "encyclopedic," that concept of notability is all we have.  Plenty of city mayors and plenty of sports coaches are notable, but how we make that determination is important because it sets the bar for every subject that follows.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have thousands of articles on university sports coaches and U.S. mayors. Europeans (not sure if you are one, but infer you may be given the user name) often don't understand the significance of university athletics in the USA. University sports often get more extensive coverage even than professional sports in this country. As Dirtlawyer correctly points out, the notability standard is an objective one based on the coverage of the subject in reliable sources, not based on anyone's subjective opinion that coaches and mayors should not have Wikipedia articles. Cbl62 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I just can't see any evidence this individual is notable. What sourcing has indicated this individual meets WP:GNG? AusLondonder (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See Cbl62's links @ 20:56, 7 November 2015. He and two other editors are arguing these references are significant coverage sufficient to satisfy GNG.  I and several other editors say "not".  Cbl62 is seeking additional coverage, and he is a talented researcher, very good at teasing relevant results out of Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchives.com.  He has asked for an AfD re-listing to complete the research process he has begun with the public library and St. Ambrose archivist.  No harm in that, and even money that it may turn up better newspaper clips than we have so far.  We shall see.  It's a process, and he has saved quite a few articles in the past.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am continuing to add, and will continue to add, sources to the article as I find them. The article is now completely rewritten from this unsourced article that was originally the subject of this AfD. Even without yet having dipped into the Quad Cities newspapers, and without even having yet heard back from the Davenport Library archivist, it is becoming clear that coverage of Duax surpasses the expectations of GNG.  One of the most significant new sources I have uncovered is a three-column, half-page feature story on Duax from the Des Moines Register (one of the most respected daily newspapers in the Midwest) which can be found at newspaperarchive.com here. See also this feature story from 1966.  I ask all prior "delete" voters to re-review the article with an open mind and honestly reflect on whether the article in its improved and updated form now meets the requirements of GNG. In this regard, I am pinging the early delete voters:, , , . Cbl62 (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cbl, can you cut and paste those two Des Moines Register article to a clip file (like you can do in Newspapers.com) or the equivalent? Both links were gone when I just tried to view them.  Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think newspaperrchives.com allows that, but they allow anyone to view a couple articles per day without subscribing. Cbl62 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Cbl62's comments above and his research to find a wide array of coverage about the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Cbl62's comments are excellent reasons for this article to stay. They've more than researched this subject. I'm not "getting" the need here to generate a more thorough discussion, unless it's just to pick-up added delete votes?! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 17:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote count.—Bagumba (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And, it might be worth assuming good faith as well. Rikster2 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, however, I'd prefer to see some facts to back up some of these WP's. Also, there's this WP:IAR's which appears to negate those WP's! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!"</i> 18:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You want facts to assume good faith? Rikster2 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, those facts are clear by the nitpicking of this conversation. Also, I'm hardly the first user to recognize AfD's are basically decided by a hobbled vote, nor will I be the last! --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeadcopy</i><i style="color:black;">"bang!"</i> 19:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Much thanks to for doing the groundwork to establish that Duax meets the notability standard. Let's all focus on facts, not opinions, and be wary of making comments which could be construed as personal attacks. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 22:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Convenience break No. 1

 * Comment - I am striking my "delete" !vote above, and I will elaborate at some length on my rationale and the various sources that have been profered. Suffice it to say that but for the two or three additional sources added and linked by Cbl62, I would be letting my "delete" vote ride.  I commend Cbl for his follow-through in finding them.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2015 (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.