Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Novak

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. ✗plicit 04:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Novak

[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)

Questionable notability per WP:NBIO/WP:GNG/WP:NBASKET with respect to depth of coverage and secondary sourcing. Poorly-sourced; strongest secondary sources supporting the subject may generally conflict with the principle of WP:AUD. Headphase (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's coaching a top-ranked SEC women's basketball program which won the NCAA championship only three years ago; interim or not, it's an automatic keep. Nate • (chatter) 02:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrschimpf: There is no such thing as an automatic keep. Per WP:NSPORTS, which WP:NBASKETBALL is a subsection of, all article subjects must show that they have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Even if there was, he still fails WP:NBASKETBALL as he is only an interim coach. That doesn't mean the article should be deleted, that only means that sources have to be found that show he passes GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know there's no such thing as an auto-keep, but this nomination makes no sense. He's coaching at the Division I level and has a history of success on lower levels, and games played under an interim title count just as much as they would if he gets hired permanently. Nate • (chatter) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The league and team might be notable but notability is not inherited. Inclusion for athletes and coaches on Wikipedia is not merit based, rather it is based on them being covered significantly by indepth articles. The nomination questions his notability due to lack of coverage and as such makes sense since there doesn't seem to be alot of significant articles written on Novak. While Rikster2 has found three indepth sources, two of them are by the same author and all three are from a timespan of three weeks and brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability per WP:SUSTAINED. Alvaldi (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Alvaldi mentioned, notability is not inherited; the suitability of a subject earning a standalone article is not founded on that subject's future prospects. That is why existing coverage is important; until such a time as a subject's independent notability is clearly established by significant & targeted coverage, it may make more sense to merge the information into a larger article (in this case, the team's article). Headphase (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sigh 😒...then why did you nominate it for deletion?! If you think it works as a redirect, try to do so yourself and if it doesn't stick, then bring it to AfD. I'm getting real sick of these quixotic deletion nominations where deletion will not be the end result, the nom still takes it right to AfD, and redirects and PRODs aren't ever considered. And if he gets a permanent contract and/or wins the title, this nom is going to look silly and downright embarrassing in retrospect; I guarantee you if the subject was an interim FBS football coach in September or men's basketball coach in early December, you'd be TROUTed and speedy closed, because an interim college head coach is still a head coach. Nate • (chatter) 21:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whether Novak gets a permanent contract or wins a championship in the future is irrelevant to this AfD. He either has the significant coverage to pass GNG today or he doesn't and thus is not notable enough to warrant an article. Alvaldi (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG per coverage such as this and this and this. Rikster2 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, round 2: 1 and 2. BTW, GNG only requires “multiple” significant sources. Rikster2 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SEC women's head coach meets GNG and has sources. Not sure why this was even nominated. Jhn31 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the three articles that have been found, two are from the same author/newspaper and as such count as single source for the purposes of establishing notability. All three are from a timespan of three weeks, i.e. a brief bursts of news coverage related to his hiring. There is no inherited notability gained for coaching a certain team or in a certain league and !votes that state that the subject should be kept due to that contradict policy. NSPORTS specifically states that athletes and coaches have to pass WP:GNG with significant coverage over a sufficiently significant period of time. I tried looking for other sources, including on newspapers.com, but did not find anything of substance. Two articles in a span of three weeks are not enough in my opinion. I'm willing to reconsider if more sources are found. Alvaldi (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you done any independent research yourself for sources? I dug those out in 5 minutes from a Google search. If you are going to repeatedly insert yourself into this debate then I think you also need to give looking for sources an honest go before proclaiming someone doesn’t meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rikster2: As I mentioned in my above comment, I did look for sources. To clarify, I tried a few Google searches with some variations (name different schools etc.) and went through a few pages. I also did a search Newspapers.com where I also tried few variations and different time periods. The best I found were the same sources your search turned up. I am more than willing to change my !vote if others have better luck in finding significant sources from perhaps earlier in his career. Alvaldi (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple more references above. Including a lengthy interview from the Minneapolis Star when he was at Bethel. The GNG requirement isn't 30 sources it is "multiple sources." I have now cited 4 different (if you combine the 2 Clarion Ledger as one source). Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the sources. GNG isn't a massive hurdle to overcome, three good sources are usually enough. He now has multiple significant sources from over at least 4 year period. I will change my !vote to Keep. I also added the sources to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All bar one of the previous Mississippi State Bulldogs women's basketball head coaches have pages for them (see template on page). Plus there seem to be a number of articles about him which are easily found on the internet. Perhaps worth adding additional information about win/loss whilst assistant at earlier places and more on what he did at Bethel. Gusfriend (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG as the subject of articles like this. NemesisAT (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG at this point. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep – I question the objectors' WP:BEFORE diligence. It took me less than 10 minutes to find a number of third party, significant, reliable sources, only to then see a couple editors above already linked them in support of keeping this article. SportsGuy789 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lsw2472 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2022 (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.