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. Peripitus (Talk) 10:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Stevens[edit]

James A. Stevens (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:

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) 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The search databases I use have full-text articles going back to 1913. Celarnor Talk to me 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it really matters, though. How does he not pass the notability guidelines? To claim that there was a higher level that a black football coach could coach at in 1951 is completely ignorant of the culture of the United States pre-1980. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I don't care about what level he coached at; I know absolutely nothing about foot-ball. I'm only interested in coverage in third-party reliable sources, which the subject doesn't have. Celarnor Talk to me 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these secondary sources? Celarnor Talk to me 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably on microfilm somewhere. I highly doubt that google has various African-American newspapers from the 1930s-40s. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not in a free search database, no, but I imagine that if it existed, it would be found by any of the 15 search databases available to RIT that I'm looking for them in that carry material from that period. You can't assert notability using sources that you can't verify. Celarnor Talk to me 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is where common sense applies. White mainstream newspapers in the 1940s and 1950s in Texas were not going to report on the exploits of African-American football coaches and their schools. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They did with a more notable coach in Florida in the same time period. Celarnor Talk to me 21:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is fallacious for two reasons. A) Prairie View A&M is in Texas, not Florida and B) Billy Nicks is a Hall of Fame coach and I can't find any sources from the era in which he coached. I state again that looking for online sources for a coach that last coached at the school 57 years ago is completely unreasonable. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it wasn't in Texas. That was just a random search of black coaches from that era (there are 4,795 newspaper articles regarding that particular coach written between 1900 and 1970). I was simply pointing that that your "There are no sources available from the time period" doesdn't work, because there's coverage of other colored coaches. I'm not looking for online sources. I'm looking for print sources. There are several databases that archive images of microfilm print sources back to the turn of the century. There just simply isn't enough secondary coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping this article; while he may pass part of athlete as a coach of whatever level of football, it still requires coverage in secondary reliable sources. Celarnor Talk to me 22:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the statement "Of coure it wasn't in Texas" really brings another point--Texas newspapers and Texans in the time period were less apt to report on, reconginze, and reward the activities and successes of African Americans. So because he was coaching at an underfunded segregated black college in Texas, it's not worth an article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a corollary; it's not worth an article because there's no secondary coverage of the subject in reliable sources, which is how we gauge notability. If a few things were to be written now about him now, then sure, he'd be notable. The problem is there isn't anything, which means this doesn't pass n, and only passes V because footballing records show that he exists. Celarnor Talk to me 00:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out again and again, it was over 50 years ago, so reliance on online databases is unfair and more or less irrelevant. Consensus has shown that head coaches of programs that are currently Division I are considered notable. The intent of the guideline is to prevent every walk-on and assistant kicking coach that ever existed from having an article. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 24 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.
More