Talk:Paul LaVinn

Additional sources

I found an additional source here that appears to place him at Upper Iowa University with the basketball program, and a little something here that looks like it links to his high school coaching, but may contain more information... but I don't really feel like paying the fee to see the article. Anyone have rights to view it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I have added more sources and details to the article and have removed the deletion tag. Please see essay at WP:CFBN for further reasoning behind notability guidelines for college footbal coaches, as well as other projects for baseball and basketball.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

An essay which is totally out of line with the general notability guideline and which has been soundly ignored in many recent AfD's. I'll AfD this article now. Fram (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Of which many of those AfDs have been soundly overturned, which you can review at the West Precedent essay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay civil here, but you should be well aware that West was recreated only after it was established that he had been a professional player and therefor passed WP:ATHLETE, not because he was a head coach and passed your essay. Please don't use such false arguments. Fram (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break Interesting, I was going to say the same thing. Well, let's chalk it up to what can sometimes happen when people converse by typing instead of in person.

Regardless, I believe it is absolutely a fair assessment for the reasons given in the essay noted above... but if you like, I will summarize here:

1. A large number of articles were nominated for deletion all at once immediately following the deletion of West
2. A large number of those articles were deleted based on the West Precedent argument
3. When the West deletion was overturned, the following happened:
   1. AfDs of small college football coaches dropped dramatically
   2. Of those articles nominated for deletion, there was a marked increase in the AfD discussion resulting in either keep or no consensus, where before the weight of West gave a result weighted to delete
   3. Many Articles once deleted by the West Precedent (at present count, a full 31%) have been restored.

Conclusion: The trend of deletions of small college football head coach articls has reversed.

This is all covered in the above mentioned essay. You may read it at your leisure and comment on it if you like.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read most of the essay. It nicely skips over the fact that all of the reversals are due to the fact that you uncovered much more sources, and that many of these persons turn out to be notable for other reasons. No deletion was reversed because the deletion discussion was incorrectly closed. I am not going to comment on your essays, let me be succinct and state that I don't like them one bit and think that they are misleading at worst, unnecessary at best. WP:N and WP:BIO are more than sufficient, no more sunssubguidelines are needed or as far as I am concerned wanted. And I did not use the West precedent, I gave a general assessment. Fram (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does indeed point out that "articles once deleted under the West precedent have been improved in user workspace and are beginning to be restored by the deleting administrator" under the section Immediate impact of restoration of West in the essay. There are other references to article improvements and additional sources as well, such as "Jack Sack boldly restored when professional career found" and "Boldly restored John W. Breen when significant professional football contributions found " and many others. Further, the discussions on each article restoration is linked on the essay and appropritate article talk page to prevent redundancy, as is recommended and preferred by most Wikipedians. You can see examples of this in Wally Bullington's entry (among others) with the phrase "article subsequently was Restored after a deletion review discussion."

You previously accused me of being uncivil for making "false arguments" and being "misleading" yet I cannot help but wonder how to react to your arguments here. I understand that you don't like the essay but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a reason to delete anything. What exactly is going on here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not tried to delete anything because "idontlikeit", so please don't argue as if I did. No AfD's were overturned, so the original AfD's are all still valid, despite the impression the essay gives. But there is no evidence that this article is going to be among the 1/3 improved articles, and not among the 2/3 still deleted. There is no evidence that this person has any notability per WP:N, and the fact that he would automatically qualify under your notability essay, just like many other currently deleted articles, indicates to me that the essay is not in line with our general practices. Articles have been restored because significant coverage has been found: no article has been restored based on the reasoning of the essay. Fram (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you did say that you don't like the essay one bit. That really implies an "I don't like it" point of view, and a strong one at that. You claim that there is no evidence that this person has notability, yet there are sources on the page (and yes, you don't like them either). How do you mean "No AfDs were overturned" ?? To me, this is just not true because a bunch of the articles deleted through the AfD have been subsequently restored through the deleting admin, deletion review, or other discussions. Oh, and lots of articles have been restored and/or not deleted in the first place based on arguments in WP:CFBN. Just check out all the pages that link to it and read some!--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the essay, and I want to have the article deleted. You said that "WP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a reason to delete anything", but that is a straw man, since I never used the two in connection. I don't want to delete the essay I don't like, and I don't want to delete the article because I don't like the essay, but because the subject is not notable. Sources don't indicate notability: reliable, independent sources with indepth information about the subject provide notability. I don't see such sources. And it is not because you link to CFBN in a discussion where the article is subsequently restored, that it are the arguments in that essay which were deciding or even convincing. The articles were restored not becaues the AfD was invalid (no AfD was overturned), but because new evidence of notability (e.g., being a pro player, or having indepth reliable sources like the NYT) was provided. Fram (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to look at it, I guess. As for if the individual is noteworthy or not, the trend on the AfD for this page and for others appears to be taking the position that it is noteworthy and the article should be kept. I believe that you have connected the two through your strong comments here and on the AfD discussion page, evidinced by repeated misquoting. Others may agree or disagree. Anyway, I'm tired of discussing notability of this article on two pages--we should remain only on the AfD page if you wish to continue. But I think we're digressing into WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)