Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Arth

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Arth[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable football player. Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Spent time with the Indianapolis Colts, but never played (see [1]). Spent time with the Toronto Argonauts in 2007, but never played (see [2]). Spent time with two Arena Football League teams, but again never played (see [3]). He played NCAA Division III football and coaches at that level, so WP:NCOLLATH does not appear to help. So with no SNG being met, I am not seeing GNG being met. Most results are from the college he went to and coaches at, so they are not independent. Had he played outside of NFL Europe (see [4]) it would be a different story, but never playing at a top level and going to a Division III school does not help. I think this article should be deleted. RonSigPi (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep head coaches of college football programs are normally kept as they are found to generate enough coverage to pass WP:GNG as outlined at the essay WP:CFBCOACH.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFBCOACH isn't a policy, it is just an essay. We are not talking about an FBS or even FCS program here. This is a Division III program - I just don't see all Division III coaches being presumed notable. I think the head coaches at Maranatha Baptist University, Lyon College (an NAIA school), and Iowa Wesleyan University - all schools with well under 1,000 students - need more than just an essay to grant a presumption of notability. I have no problem with FBS or FCS schools getting a presumption. Division III football just does not get much coverage and therefore you cannot presume all coaches are notable. Sure, some Division III coaches meet GNG, such as Lee Tressel, Larry Kehres, and John Gagliardi, but we should not assume coverage exists for the near thousand coaches at Division III/NAIA schools. Few of these schools' sports teams have any significant media footprint. RonSigPi (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is an essay. That's why I posted that it is an essay. Please read it to find responses and discussion about the issues you raised. For example, why is "under 1,000" students suddenly not notable? That seems very arbitrary. The essay does not "prove or disprove" notability, it contains arguments commonly encountered over (gosh a decade now?) of arguments and discussions. Your argument was that Division III doesn't get the coverage, but as we can see below there is a good amount of coverage available and therefore shows again that such cases do indeed tend to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search came up with this feature article about Arth from a major newspaper. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the same article. And that is the only one I found (outside of a job hiring announcement from the same website). WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In other articles i have seen, three is the minimum standard - (e.g., see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 BWF World Championships). If you find feature articles in two more independent sources, then I think GNG is met. Passing mentions are not enough (e.g., only one or two mentions in the article or something similar to a media release such as a job hiring announcement). Nor are blog posts or other articles from Cleveland.com. I have no problem if GNG is shown to be met, but I have not seen it and one article is not enough to meet GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with the articles at Cleveland.com, especially since such a large number of those articles come from The Plain Dealer, a major newspaper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I think RonSigPi's point here is that in the effort to find three independent, reliable sources, only one can from Cleveland.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some other sources [5] [6] [7]. This could be expanded into a decent sized article pretty easily. I don't think that it would have been nominated for deletion if it wasn't short. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2016 (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.