Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haney Catchings

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. ff m 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haney Catchings

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTABILITY and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD recently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exceeds WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY. Notable head coach in college football at two college/universies for 10 seasons, including breaking the longest losing streak in college football history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:NOTE in that there are no reliable non-trivial sources in the article. -Djsasso (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response again, how is "Sports Illustrated" a trivial source?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is not specifically about him. In order for coverageto be non-trivial the article has to be about the subject. Not about something else that mentions the subject. -Djsasso (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep head coach at 2 important historically black universities over a long period. There are likely to be print sources, and the article should not be abandoned until someone does a proper search. Pre-web information about this and similar universities is relatively difficult to find, but they are nonetheless important historically. As Wikipedia is intended to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, stub articles should not be removed untill they can be properly worked on. DGG (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His prosecution in an expense report scandal led to national coverage: Seattle Times, Los Angeles Times. In a book, Sports Illustrated writer Rick Telander mentions his alleged brutal treatment of his players that led to a boycott. The boycott was also reported in the New York Times.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article Update The content of the article has been updated and more sources have been added.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to have generated quite a bit of coverage. However, needs to be carefully watched for WP:BLP violations. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Samuel J. Howard and caution on the BLP issues. -- Banjeboi 06:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question as written now, how do ediotrs feel about BLP?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - go easy on negative notoriety, there are a few statements surrounding the not allowing players access to class/academic stuff that need sources, and maybe could be phrased a bit differently. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Samuel. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.