Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Masters

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 delete per consensus regarding lack of coverage or notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Masters[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No significant coverage about coach, fails WP:NCOLLATH. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The mass nomination of coaching articles in the past couple days is a bit overwhelming. There's an important issue to be debated, but the issue could be better assessed with time to analyze each case. In my case, I am flying out of the country tomorrow for three weeks, so regrettably my time will be limited in digging through the sources. No time to fully assess and weigh, but here are a couple hits on Masters from Newspapers.com: [1], [2], [3]. As noted in the other AfD about a coach from The Apprentice School, it is significant that this is not a college or university, but rather an apprenticeship school for a private shipbuilding company which, at the time Masters was the coach, had a total enrollment of only 475 students -- smaller than most urban high schools. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What is overwhelming is that this user has created about 1,500 articles on coaches without respect for significant coverage, under the mistaken belief that they are automatically notable. Most of them coached for teams of schools that like this one are very small and do not play at an actually competitive level (and would likely lose to those high schools!). These brief mentions are moreso coverage of what is happening with The Apprentice Builders football team and not biographical. If the team itself isn't notable, why should all of its coaches be? Reywas92^Talk 14:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - In December of 2008 (for this article anyway). Why the rush? Why have deletion review all at once on so many? Why do you feel "overwhelemd" by it? I mean, I got barnstars for work like this. Consensus can change, yes... but has consensus changed? Maybe, but I don't see evidence of that--although I do see that there is support for the change. I'm also wondering how you can be so sure what I was thinking while I created (by your count) 1,500 articles over a decade ago. I don't even think I remember what I was thinking I just remember the article creation drive for for the project.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know what you were thinking because you cited Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability when you removed my prods, an essay you wrote but which has not been adopted as a guideline. Consensus has always been that you need multiple independent significant sources for notability, never that low-level coaches are exempt from that. Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes I wrote a lot of that but a number of others contributed. If you'll take the time to actually read it, you'll find that agrees that WP:GNG is the given standard (referenced I think 10 times on that essay) and that the essay demonstrates why largely head coaches by and large will eventually be found to meet that standard. That's different from "automatic notabily" Oh, and of course the essay hasn't been adopted as a guideline... then it would be a guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It takes minutes (seconds maybe) to create an AFD. It takes a lot longer to respond and improve the articles. Mass deletions are still mass deletions. The goal should be wP:Preserve and we should implement WP:Before. The goal is to serve the readers. It is a rigged game. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, as has been explained to you recently, WP:PRESERVE relates to article contents, not whether there should be an article about a topic or not. The goal of AfD is actually to implement notability standards. And the "game" is not "rigged". Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent in-depth coverage establishing the WP:ANYBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of your opinions about WP:Preserve. We disagree. You may not see it, but mass deletions stilt the process. We can agree to disagree as to whether this is rigging the system, or merely distorting the AFD process. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my "opinion" regarding WP:PRESERVE, it is the stated purpose of the policy. Also, this was brought to your attention by someone else.

On the other hand, the statement "You may not see it, but mass deletions stilt the process" is purely an unsupported opinion (expressed in a way to belittle my competence that shows a lack of WP:RESPECT despite the final warning you received at AN/I last month).

I disagree with both that it is "rigging the system" AND "merely distorting the AfD process", so please do not try to put words into my mouth.

This AfD thread is probably not the place for it, however I would be interested to discuss your views about bulk nominations, so please see here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparenty every AFD is now an occasion to challenge me. This is just another distraction. I would suggest you give it a rest. I stand by what I said. I was not "putting words into your mouth." I am not a ventriloquist It was not even directed at you. It's not about you. Take it to ANI if you are feeling lucky. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The comment of yours "we can agree to disagree..." was in reply to my comment, so it seems far fetched for you to now claim that it was not directed at me. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD which is essentially the corollary to WP:PRESERVE: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page [topic]." The main idea throughout all the policies is not to delete (topic or content) as first resort, rather make an effort to try and preserve and/or improve. Why we have BEFORE and other policies. As for a 'rigged' game well, both deletion and inclusion have their own advantages. Personally I think the system has decent balance of powers, and 7&6 is correctly stating an inclusion power ATD ie. PRESERVE/BEFORE/etc.. while complaining of a deletion power bulk deletion that may or may not have merit. -- GreenC 06:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Atrocious wee article. scope_creep^Talk 11:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCOLLATH as only head coaches at Division I programs receive a presumption of notability. The Apprentice School is not such a program -- but rather, as noted above, an apprenticeship school for a private shipbuilding company which, at the time Masters was the coach, had a total enrollment of only 475 students . IMO the topic also fails WP:GNG. I did find some WP:SIGCOV (here) in the Newport News paper (where the apprenticeship school is located), but we should expect to have SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, and independent sources to pass the GNG bar for a coach at a low-level school such as this. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to The Apprentice Builders#Football would also be fine. Cbl62 (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to The Apprentice Builders#Football. If other sources exist, I can't find them. He is a bare footnote in college athletics, but deserves mention in connection with the program or the college. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:36, 15 December 2021 (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.