Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoover J. Wright
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The page has been radically improved since its nomination. The addition of multiple sources, and evidence that the subject was inducted into the NAIA Track Coaches Hall of Fame, has produced a firm consensus amongst editors that the article should be kept. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoover J. Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I speedy-deleted this page under CSD:A7 as there was no overt assertion of notability. After a discussion and a DRV supported by four editors (all from WikiProject College Football) I undeleted the page and am now listing it here.
I feel this article should be deleted for the following reasons:
- The subject does not meet any part of WP:BIO
- The team which he managed does not even have its own article
- The article contains no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy
- Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources.
- Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source. See WP:SPS.
I have nominated most of the articles together but am separating this article as it claims that the coach is one of the four most successful that this team has had, therefore there is an extra chance that he is notable. In the interest of full disclosure I would ask members of WP:CFB to declare their membership when giving their opinion in this AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my comments in the main nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Deletion review is here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 May 16#Head coach articles (closed) 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Browsing through Google, it seems that very few sources exist. I could find only one possibly appropriate source, which falls short of the requirements of WP:N. Jakew (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment NCAA? When Hoover Wright was the coach at Prairie View, they were in the NAIA. The NCAA would not have any records or statistics. But I enhanced the article a lot, would the New York Times and ESPN do?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The NCAA may not have records or statistics about games, but this article isn't just about Prairie View. It's about a person. It's a biography. There are two absolutely basic facts that ought to be in any biography (well, one if the subject is alive): when the subject was born, and when they died. The NCAA page provides the answer to one of these questions. The question is: can the other question be answered? Jakew (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused So the New York Times and ESPN are NOT good enough sources for you?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for any confusion. NYT and ESPN are perfectly acceptable sources, but those sources contain only a passing mention of the subject of the article. Per WP:N#General notability guideline, I'm looking for sources with "significant coverage", and I don't see that. On the other hand, per WP:BIO#Basic criteria, a larger number of sources with less in-depth material may be acceptable. In my humble opinion, a good test of the overall availability of information is whether basic biographical data can be sourced. Jakew (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the "known birth date" issue: Lots of people have articles and no known or confirmed birth date. Many historical figures, sure, but Satchel Paige comes to mind in the sports world--an African American born around 1906 or 1907. Hoover Wright was an African American born sometime around 1929, and likely in the southern US. It's not unreasonable to assume that no public records are available on the internet for his birth date. Sure, the article would be enhanced if we have that--and I'll look for it--but not having a birth date shouldn't be grounds for deletion of a biographical article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right: there are cases where such information isn't known, although the subject may be notable. Nevertheless, basic biographical data is often available, in the loose sense of the term. A good example is the article you mention, which has some in-depth information about the ambiguity of the birth date. In light of the recent changes to the article, I'm reconsidering my opinion of it. Jakew (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the "known birth date" issue: Lots of people have articles and no known or confirmed birth date. Many historical figures, sure, but Satchel Paige comes to mind in the sports world--an African American born around 1906 or 1907. Hoover Wright was an African American born sometime around 1929, and likely in the southern US. It's not unreasonable to assume that no public records are available on the internet for his birth date. Sure, the article would be enhanced if we have that--and I'll look for it--but not having a birth date shouldn't be grounds for deletion of a biographical article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for any confusion. NYT and ESPN are perfectly acceptable sources, but those sources contain only a passing mention of the subject of the article. Per WP:N#General notability guideline, I'm looking for sources with "significant coverage", and I don't see that. On the other hand, per WP:BIO#Basic criteria, a larger number of sources with less in-depth material may be acceptable. In my humble opinion, a good test of the overall availability of information is whether basic biographical data can be sourced. Jakew (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused So the New York Times and ESPN are NOT good enough sources for you?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The NCAA may not have records or statistics about games, but this article isn't just about Prairie View. It's about a person. It's a biography. There are two absolutely basic facts that ought to be in any biography (well, one if the subject is alive): when the subject was born, and when they died. The NCAA page provides the answer to one of these questions. The question is: can the other question be answered? Jakew (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NCAA? When Hoover Wright was the coach at Prairie View, they were in the NAIA. The NCAA would not have any records or statistics. But I enhanced the article a lot, would the New York Times and ESPN do?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if its a major college team its coach is notable. DGG (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Re:PaulMcDonald in Prarie View A&M Coaches. Precedent has been set with other articles. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Found many more sources and have enhanced article with new details and additional information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most of the sources given only contain trivial mention. The only full-feature one that I can see is the enthusiast website, which generally aren't RS, since they're primary. Celarnor Talk to me 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per notability established in obituary. Member of NAIA Hall of Fame. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Smashville membership in NAIA Hall of Fame would make him notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's been over 5 days. I propose that the article be kept with a consensus of "keep" -- any objections or discussion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 21 May 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.