Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West

Re-tooling
It turns out that this particular person also had an NFL career. It is being re-worked in my user area at User:Paulmcdonald/Walter J. West. I'm saddened that I was not able to participate fully in this discussion due to a personal issue for a short period of time (i.e. a "birth") as it is now being quoted as "precedent" in many other AfDs (at last count, 72!).

A lot of accusations were made in the AfD, and I just don't hink that they were properly addressed. Since it seems that so many other AfD discussions are referencing this one and attempting to topple a large number of articles, I will be looking to address those issues here. While I do not expect these comments to overturn the existing AfD, if it is going to be used as "precedent" on other AfD discussions, it would be handy to have a single location to address those issues.

College Football Notability Essay attempts to re-define notability
Selected Statements
 * Delete. WikiProjects do not get to redefine notability requirements for articles in their purview and this guy clearly does not meet the agreed standards at WP:BIO etc. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Ravenswing is completely correct. Besides, keeping based on an essay from a Wikiproject would set an extremely bad precedent. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also agree with Stifle. An RfC may be necessary on the contradictory guidelines established by this specific WikiProject. MuZemike (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment — I will add that WikiProjects may establish their own guidelines and policies, they should not be of lower standards than those of the community at large. MuZemike (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mm, yes. As it stands, WP:ATHLETE is the most notoriously loose guideline of WP:BIO, and there's broad consensus that it should be tightened.  There's just no consensus as to how, since the concept of notability varies so widely between sports.  Still, it's almost always the case that Wikiproject criteria is a good bit tighter.    Ravenswing  05:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, and I'm tired of these five-person Wikiprojects making up their own notability guideline which they think the whole WP community must abide by. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 05:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment / request. Please would he /she who closes this please delete all coaches with similar non notable bios. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-Notable. As if WP:ATHLETE wasn't bad enough. No Wikiproject gets to give their favorite topic a free ride.Kww (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * delete I would be prepared to accept assumed notability for the coach a a major college team; i would probably accept it for someone who had in some way a seminal or historic role possibly even within the college; I would possiblyy accept it for even a small college where the coach's tenure was associated with championships; but for a small college coach with an undistinguished record holding the position for 4 years only and associated with no major developments of any sort--this is just plain unreasonable. I accept specialized guidelines, but they have to meet the test of common sense as judged by the overall community. I'll defer to those particularly interested as long as they're reasonable about it, and in this case they are not. DGG (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per DGG; do not accept arguments of the keep people to be sufficient to ignore the site-wide policy, and a Wikiproject does not make policy that can override site-wide policy. Daniel (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses
 * 1) The basic part of these statements (as I see them) is that WikiProject College football/Notability is attempting to hijack, re-write, supercede, or otherwise create broader-reaching notability rules than WP:N.  This is just not the case and certainly was never the intention of the essay.  The essay begins with the statement "For more details on this topic, see Notability."  The essay is intended to provide "advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise."

I'll continue to respond/add as I have more time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The talk page of a closed AfD is probably not the best page to have this discussion, but anyway. The AfD should not be used as a defining precedent, just like the kept AfD's weren't defining precedents either. However, it did indicate that at the moment, there is a considerable group of editors who think that being a college football head coach on its own is not enough as a claim to notability to be included on Wikipedia. It may trun out that this head coach was notable for other reasons (just like happened ion other AfD's earlier), but it doesn't change the general opinion expressed in this one, and it is that opinion on head coaches that is used as a precedent, an indication of current consensus. Note that even if you take this article to DRV and you are allowed to recreate it, this does not mean that the earlier AfD was incorrect or that the consensus has changed. The article will be created because he was a pro football player, and the fact that he was also a head coach will obviously be mentioned. Fram (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, if twelve comments in the AfD isn't getting to "participate fully," what is? That being said, quite aside from Fram's comments, I wouldn't dream of claiming that I didn't intend my Wikiproject essay to trump WP:N if I'd been responding to AfDs for the better part of a year with "Keep per CFB:COACH" or "Keep per CFB:N."  Not only did you intend to do so, you argued quite passionately that you had a consensus that it did.  I agree that if he turns out to have been a pro football player (and after the Moulton and Huston business, I'm taking nothing on faith here), an article is justified, but on that basis alone.    Ravenswing  15:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what? Forget it.  You convinced me.  I'm done with Wikipedia for a while.  I've been as polite as I can, and you continue to harass.  just delete everything on Wikipedia, then maybe it will be up to your standards.  Let Wikipedia have no pages at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Strong Keep and Merge: WikiProject College football consideres all head college football coaches (past and present) notable."
 * "Keep per CFB:COACH"
 * "If you want to argue that small college head football coaches in general are not notable, then please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and make your case."
 * "Keep — Re: Prarie View A&M Coaches. Precedent has been set with other articles."
 * "Consensus has already been reached on similar articles: (examples)"
 * "Consensus from Speedy Deletion Review#Head coach articles was reached on all coaches in question, with 4-1 in favor of "Overturn All" or "Obvious Overturn All"
 * "WikiProject College football consideres all head coaches (past and present) of notable college football programs to be notable, and notable college football programs are further defined as NCAA (Division I FBS, Division I FCS, Division II, and Division III) as well as NAIA programs."
 * "Per WP:CON, silence implies consensus."
 * Over and over again, we've seen these, and over and over again, you've pulled out delaying tactics and disingenuous flip-flops. You're happy to claim consensus and precedent when you feel they back you up, and reject the concept when it doesn't.  What Wikipedia needs to be is accurate and verifiable, not filled with these speculations and guesswork.    Ravenswing  18:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)