User:PennySpender1983/Sandbox

WikiProject Bridges

WikiProject Council/Guide

Sample wikiprojects with notability essays
 * WikiProject Ice Hockey
 * WikiProject College football

Suspension bridge diagrams
 * Handbook of structural engineering, By Wai-Fah Chen, 1997, page 10.53
 * Visual dictionary
 * Basic Structural Analysis, by Reddy Page 236, Figure 8.1
 * Planning and design of bridges, by Troitsky, Figure 6.11 on page 115

Arch refernces
 * Proceedings of the First International Conference on Arch Bridges
 * arch-bridges.com, Fuzhou University
 * Fifth International Conference on Arch Bridges

General bridge reference
 * powerpoint for a bridge class

The SC Highway Dept
 * * 
 * * 

James Buchanan Eads references

Bridge References
 * Bridge Engineering by Tonias and Zhao
 * Bridge Engineering by Tonias and Zhao
 * Bridge Engineering by Tonias and Zhao
 * Bridge Engineering by Tonias and Zhao
 * Bridge Engineering by Tonias and Zhao
 * Bridge Engineering by Tonias and Zhao
 * Bridge Engineering by Tonias and Zhao

Bridge notability references


 * Historic Highway Bridges in Maryland: 1631-1960, Historic Context Report






 * Small Structures on Maryland's Roadways, Historic Context Report





Unusual truss bridges in the US

HistoricBridges.org Historic Significance Rating

The WikiProject Bridges Notability Guidelines aim to promote the creation of high-quality articles about bridges and related topics.

Wikipedia contains many articles on topics related to bridges. These guidelines are not meant to be all-inclusive. As in all things, in order for an article to exist on Wikipedia, there should be reliable sources of information and the article cannot be original research. Articles must be written in a neutral point of view and not overly complimentory or derogatory to the team or topic.

Bridge Types
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Each general type of bridge is notable. This includes their history, development, and current usage. There will be many bridges constructed of each general type (hundreds or thousands) and will have substantial coverage in engineering journals, design codes, and other bridge-related publications (books or magazines).

Each general type of bridge will have a link in the Template:Bridge footer that is placed at the bottom of these articles.

Sub-types
Specific sub-types of bridges are notable, but may not warrant their own article. For example, the side-spar cable-stayed bridge is a sub type of the cable-stayed bridge. There are only a few of this type that have been built. If a bridge sub-type has not received substantial coverage in secondary sources, information about it should probably be merged into the article about its parent type.

Lists of bridges (by date, type, length, or material)
Lists of bridges provide important contextual information that can demonstrate the significance of bridges in comparison to each other. Bridge lists in Wikipedia are most often organized by type and length.

Bridge related organizations
Organizations related to bridges follow the notability guidelines of organizations. Generally a bridge-related organization of national or international scale has notability. (WP:CLUB) As an additional criteria, organizations should be considered notable where the secondary sources present its members as experts on the subject of bridges.

Following are some examples of notable bridge-related organizations. This is not intended to be a complete list.

Conferences
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

College football play is typically broken into conferences, where groups of the same schools will play each other each year. This can develop rivalries and a rich history. Sample conferences include the Big Ten Conference, the Mid-States Football Association, and the Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference.

Defunct conferences are also notable, such as the Big Eight Conference and the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the Northwest.

This is not intended to be a complete list.

Teams
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Schools that participate in college football and are members of the National Collegiate Athletic Association or the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics are considered notable. Participation may be past, present, and/or planned in the future. Schools may have a team page for their football team, an athletic page for all sports teams, and/or an athletics section of the school's main page in Wikipedia.

Common arguments encountered-teams
The following are some of the common arguments against the notability of a team.

Too Small: It's too small of a school to be notable


 * The Short Answer: This number is big or not big enough


 * The "size" of the school does not disqualify for notability. Many small colleges are proving grounds for coaches that go on to great fame. When Pop Warner started coaching at Georgia, there were only 126 students enrolled.


 * Notability discussions about a college football team should be centered around the team and not the college (or university). If the number of students enrolled in the school would be a deciding factor of notability, then what would be that cutoff point?  5,000 students?  Why not 4,999?

It's only an NAIA School: NAIA schools are not notable, only NCAA schools count (or NCAA Division I, etc)


 * The Short Answer: Consensus--the project has chosen to include NAIA and all levels of NCAA play.


 * This was heavily discussed early on in the project development. Through the growth of the project, it was discovered that coaches may start at an NAIA School and then work through the ranks to other divisions.  Dennis Franchione, Jerry Kill, and Harold Elliott are a few examples.  This discovery led to the conclusion that the research value of including the NAIA schools outweighed any borderline notability issues that may arise.


 * There also have been many significant programs in the NAIA. College of Emporia was one of the first schools to regularly call the forward pass and halfback option.


 * Other discussions involved the project name: the "Wikipedia:WikiProject College football" -- which includes, by definition, all colleges.  The project is not "Wikipedia:WikiProject NCAA Football" or "Wikipedia:WikiProject NCAA Division I FBS football" but encompasses all of college.


 * Further, the NAIA did not form until 1937, and some schools move from NAIA to NCAA (Emporia State University and Washburn University are examples). So should Wikipedia consider only the time periods in the NCAA, or the entire history of the program, or only programs currently in the NCAA, or any program that ever was in the NCAA?


 * NAIA schools will, at times, play an NCAA school. One example is the Victory Bowl, which may place an NAIA team against an NCAA team.  It is not uncommon for Division III schools to play an NAIA school currently, and in the history of the NAIA it would be even more common.


 * Finally, as of 2008 there are "rumblings" in the media of the NAIA and NCAA merging, as reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education.


 * The consensus of the project is to include NAIA as well as all NCAA division programs in the project.

Program Does Not Exist: The school doesn't have a football program anymore/the school does not exist anymore


 * The Short Answer: Notability is not temporary.


 * Many historical achievements in the sport occured at schools that are either now closed or simply discontinued their football program.
 * Homer Woodson Hargiss is one of the early developers of the Forward Pass and Halfback option play--while coaching at the College of Emporia, a school that closed in 1972.
 * Amos Alonzo Stagg coached many years at Pacific, which no longer has football,
 * Bill Parcells played at Wichita State University, which discontinued their football program in 1986.


 * Closing the school or ceasing the program of a once notable program does not diminish the historical notability of the program. George Washington has been dead a long time too, but Wikipedia still has an article on him.

Football is stupid: Football is meaningless and has no academic value, why not write about a professor who makes a difference?


 * The Short Answer: WP:IDONTLIKEIT.


 * The benefits of leadership and self-development skills from college sports is well-documented. For example, Harvard and MIT are tied for offering the most intercollegiate varsity athletic programs of any university in the United States.  But even if they did not, many of the most respected schools do have athletic programs and there is a good deal of media support to back that up.  "Academic value" is not the standard for notability.

Junior College/Club/Intramural
Wikiproject College Football does not include junior college football, club football, or intramural football programs. At the present time, this is primarily due to a lack of interest but also due to notability concerns. Should interest in junior college football reach the point that articles begin to be created, a junior college task force may be created. For similar reasons, schools that play intercollegiate football outside the NCAA or NAIA (such as Sprint Football or club teams) or intramural football teams are not covered by the project, nor are they considered notable, except in instances where there are extenuating circumstances.


 * There is a List of NCAA Institutions with club football teams, a List of community college football programs, and an article on the National Junior College Athletic Association.

Junior Varsity
Junior-varsity (JV) teams are not considered notable. Articles about Division I JV teams playing NAIA teams are considered notable, but junior varsity college players, coaches, teams, and normal games—unless there are extenuating circumstances—are not considered notable.

Non-college teams that played a college team
In the early days of college football, it was common practice for a high school team, a military team, or even a city club to play a college football team. The games themselves may be notable and under the aegis of this project, as in 1892 Wyoming Seminary vs. Mansfield State Normal football game. However, football teams not considered a part of a college or university are not covered by the project and are not considered notable under it.

Canadian Colleges

 * See WP:CFL

Colleges located in Canada may or may not be covered under this project. There are a handful of colleges in Canada that participate in the NAIA, and thereby would be involved in this project. Colleges that compete in CIS football under the Canadian Interuniversity Sport governing body (the Canadian equivalent to the NCAA) are not a part of this project--WikiProject Canadian football has taken responsibility for those teams. This project applauds their efforts.

There are some "crossover" colleges (such as University of Victoria) where teams play in both NAIA and CIS. In such cases, both projects work together with the Canadian efforts taking the lead.

Marching Bands

 * See WP:Marching band

Marching bands are typically considered part of the pageantry of college football. However, there is a wonderful team at WikiProject Marching band that is taking care of all marching band issues (we refer to their project as "living across the street" from ours). Marching bands are not typically considered part of Wikiproject College football.

There are times when the marching band and the football game have interacted. The Play is one specific example. On those occasions, editors are encouraged to coordinate with the related project (in this case, the band).

Single Seasons
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Season articles (e.g. 2005 USC Trojans football team) are considered notable for all schools that participate in college football and are members of the National Collegiate Athletic Association or the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics.

Seasons can also be grouped together into articles, depending on available content and interest. Examples are LSU Tigers football, 1893-1899 and Arkansas Razorbacks football, 1900-1909.

Common arguments encountered-seasons
Every team's season does not deserve an article: Wikipedia does not need individual pages for every season of every team.


 * The Short Answer: Why not? (But it's probably not going to happen...)


 * The project consensus supports the idea that content should be of high quality. Many team individual season pages are well-assembled and often used, such as 2005 Texas Longhorn football team.  Others may call for a grouping of seasons by decade or coach's tenure, depending on the content.  While the seasons themselves are notable, often times multiple seasons are combined into one article.


 * Still other schools may not have editors enthusiastic about creating season-by-season pages and may simply have a football team page, an athletic page, or even just an entry on the school's page. Wikipedia is far from complete.

Far too detailed for any team, let alone a college team. Wikipedia does not need this much information on college football.


 * The Short Answer: WP:IDONTLIKEIT and Article size


 * This project has found that from time to time, editors who are not enthusiastic about college football may argue for deletion of college football articles. WP:IDONTLIKEIT addresses this issue directly, and this topic is covered in greater detail elsewhere in this article.


 * The detail of an article is important. The project editors and team members desire to create the best articles possible, and the size of an article can have a significant bearing on that.  However, that is a style issue and not a notability issue.  If an article is too long then it most certainly should be editied.  That said, consensus in the project and on Wikipdeia in general has repeatedly supported detailed single season articles of college football teams.

Not Everything Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed


 * The Short Answer: WP:EVERYTHING and WP:NOTHING


 * Sometimes editors give the WP:EVERYTHING argument, stating that "Wikipedia is not about everything." This is true, but Wikipedia also is not about "nothing" either.  Therefore, the community creates guidelines and policies outlining what qualifies for inclusion and how to come to consensus.


 * Consensus supports inclusion of single-season articles.

Not Indiscriminate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.


 * The Short Answer: WP:INDISCRIMINATE


 * Sometimes the very argument given for deltion is also the same argument given against it. The "Indiscriminate" section of the What Wikipedia is not policy gives five specific classifications of indiscriminate information:  "Frequently Asked Questions", "Plot summaries", "Lyrics databases", "Statistics", and "News reports."  The last two may apply to college football artciles.


 * Statistics--The policy states "...articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context..." and continues with "..consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability..." The display of statistics then becomes a "style" issue and not an "inclusion" issue.


 * News reports--This section references mainly "(t)imely news subjects" but does include the following reference: "Routine news coverage of such things as ... sports, ... are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be."  This is an obvious reference to an individual within a single event, not an entire season of college football.


 * Conclusion--the "indiscriminate'' argument does not apply, and is specifically overturned by consensus.

No fan pages. Wikipedia is not the place for fan pages for college football.


 * The Short Answer: Ad hominem arguments should be avoided, stick with Neutral point of view please.


 * The argument of Ad hominem consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. Sometimes editors encounter arguments made against the "fan base" of college football.  This, of course, is a "non-argument" and has no bearing on the actual notability of the true topic at hand.  Ad hominem is one of several arguments called Ignoratio elenchi or irrelevant conclusion and is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.


 * Yes, "fan pages" should be avoided. This project has found that editors who are fans of selected teams tend to favor editing articles of their favorite teams.  There is nothing wrong with that--individual editors may choose to be enthusiastic or not enthusiastic about any given topic.  This project supports the Wikipedia policy of maintaining a neutral point of view.  Provided that is done, fans are encouraged to focus editing efforts on articles of their choice, even their favorite team.

Single Season Notability Discussion Library

 * Articles for deletion/2011 Kansas State Wildcats football team (in fall of 2008, the 2011 and 2010 season were deleted, but the 2009 season was kept by consensus)
 * Articles for deletion/2008 Oregon Ducks football team
 * Articles for deletion/2005 California Golden Bears football team
 * Articles for deletion/1906 Auburn Tigers football team
 * Articles for deletion/1902 LSU Tigers football team

Single Games
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Varsity regular season, conference championship games, and bowl games are considered notable for all schools that participate in college football and are members of the National Collegiate Athletic Association or the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. Junior varsity games are not notable.

Common arguments encountered-games
Too Many: ''Every team, every game? With over 300 teams with ten games a season over 100 season, and two teams per game, that's 300,000 games!''


 * The Short Answer: So what?  Notable is notable.


 * First of all, the total number of games played is not the number of teams multiplied by the number of games, it would be half that because two teams come together to make one game. Still, the project acknowledges that could result in a very large number of articles.


 * Second, who cares? If the game is notable, then it is notable.  Just because there are other games does not take away from the uniqueness of the particular game played.  Having a large number of different games does not negate the notability of the specific game played.


 * Third, the project consensus is that when two notable organizations meet (opposing teams) for a notable activity (college football) in a notable location (the stadium) for the expressed purpose that the organizations exist (to win football games) the result is a unique notable event.


 * Fourth (and finally) the project does not expect to create an article on each and every game but merely allows for the articles to be created and has established guidelines on how to do so. Single game articles are to be of presentable quality.  Single game articles that are poor in quality, content, or otherwise are doing more harm than good should indeed be either deleted or immediately improved.

This Game/That Game: There is no article on College A vs College B, why should Wikipedia have an article on College C vs College D?


 * The Short Answer: WP:OTHERSTUFF


 * Essentially, this is not a valid argument of comparison. While it can be useful to look at other articles on Wikipedia, it is not an infallable tool.  One missing article does not make an existing article bad.

'''No Team? No Article.' If the teams don't deserve articles the game doesn't either.''


 * The Short Answer: WP:OTHERSTUFF


 * Just because a team article does not exist does not mean that the game article involving the team should not exist. Wikipedia is far from complete.

Nothing Special This is just another football game that's hardly distinguishable from the other football games of this season


 * The Short Answer: Specialist Topic


 * To the untrained eye, yes one college football game can look a lot like another. However, each week rankings and standings are modified based on win-loss records, performance, computer analysis, and even sportswriter and head coaches opinions.  At all levels of college football, team "A" defeating team "B" can dramatically affect team "C" in conference championships, weekly rankings, invitations to bowl games and/or bracket seeding in tournaments.  Even ESPN.com ranks a bottom 10 every week during the regular season.


 * In the great scheme of college football, there is no such thing as an "unimportant game" during the regular season.

This is for WikiNews People should instead write those articles at Wikinews and use inter-wiki linking.


 * The Short Answer: Both "yes" and "no"


 * Wikinews is a great resource, but the existence of a topic on Wikinews is no reason to delete an article on that same subject in Wikipedia. There are several differences between WikiNews and Wikipedia that are worth noting: 1) Wikinews allows for original reporting where Wikipedia does not; 2) Wikinews does not normally review historical topics where Wikipedia does; and 3) each story in Wikinews is to be written as a news story as opposed to an encyclopedia article that would be found in Wikipedia.

Repeating Information This article just repeats information that can be found elsewhere.


 * The Short Answer: Well-written game articles do much more.


 * Game articles do not simply duplicate what is available elsewhere. The articles bring together facts from multiple sources such as the hometown newspapers for both teams as well as the national press.  Game articles also can provide more historical context than most news reports will bother with and can aid the reader with informative links to related topics (such as terms used in college football, opposing teams, past seasons, etc.). No news source does that, not even online news sources--and unlike some on-line newspapers, access to these articles will always be free of charge.  And finally, many of the project articles also come with photos that can be reused under GFDL or CC license.

Not Encyclopedic Individual articles on football are not encyclopedic.


 * The Short Answer: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is not a reason.


 * Normally the argument is given as a "stand-alone" statement, without providing any information "why" the article is unencyclopedic. If an editor gives a reason behind the label of "unencyclopedic" then those issues should be addressed.  Until then, editors may find themselves regressing into WP:WABBITSEASON/WP:DUCKSEASON arguments.

Single Game Notability Discussion Library

 * Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech 222, Cumberland 0 (article renamed 1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech football game
 * Articles for deletion/2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game
 * Articles for deletion/Bush Push (article renamed 2005 Southern California vs. Notre Dame football game)

Special Plays
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

A "play" in college football refers to one particular session or down, and the specific orders given to the players. Sometimes these orders are executed exactly, and sometimes improvisation takes over and conclude different than intended. Normal plays such as the kickoff or screen pass are standard plays and are considered notable because they are such a core part of the game. Many of these plays are actually a part of our parent project WikiProject American football and may be shared with other projects such as WikiProject Rugby league.

While a general play may be notable, not every application of that play is considered notable. For example, the forward pass is certainly notable as an intergral part of the game, but every time the forward pass is used would not warrant an article on that specific play.

That said, college football generates unique plays from time to time. Some of these plays are analyzed and reviewed and referenced throughout the ages. The Play is one example, which is a part of the category American football plays. These plays gain notability through their uniqueness.

Awards
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection. Major national college football awards and their recipients are considered notable. A list of the major college awards can be found on the Template:College Football Awards. Note that conference awards, including All-conference team selections, are not automatically considered notable.

Other Events
General pageantry and special events dealing with college football outside of the game itself are typically listed on the page of the college hosting the event. In the rare instance that the event is notable enough to support a standalone page, it may fall under the aegis of the College Football Wikiproject. If the event was founded to promote a college football team or to commemorate a particular game, consider it a part of the project. The Aggie Bonfire, a featured article once on the main page, is one such example.

Lists
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.


 * For more details see the essay Lists in Wikipedia

Due to the nature of college football and the fact that the subject is underrepresented on Wikipedia, it may be preferable to present information in list format. List topics are notable if they deal with a school, individual, football conference, or other organization that is itself notable under the guidelines listed on this page. No list describing an aspect of a non-notable subject can be notable. Notable subjects can have non-notable lists, however. Editors are advised to use their judgment when composing list-style information. An article entitled List of Maryland Terrapins football fans will not be notable. A list entitled Maryland Terrapins NFL Draft picks, on the other hand, will be notable.

Locations
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.
 * For more details on this topic, see Notability (Places and transportation).

Locations where regular play for college football takes place are considered notable. These locations include both current and historic locations, and can cover on-campus stadiums or off-campus stadiums.

Some locations other than stadiums are notable, such as NCAA Hall of Champions. Other locations relevant to college football may not be notable. Such non-notable locations include locker rooms, practice facilities, administrative buildings, etc. However, those locations may have achieved notablilty through other methods.

Players
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Wikipedia Notability states, "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports and meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them are considered notable."

For the college football project, consensus interprets this to include players that:
 * went on to play in the NFL, AFL, or CFL (or other comparable professional leagues)
 * went on to be a head coach in the NFL, AFL, or CFL (or other comparable professional leagues)
 * were inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame
 * won major national awards such as the Heisman Trophy, Outland Trophy, Wuerffel Trophy, Doak Walker Award, or other similar trophy
 * completed a special noteworthy play or achievement
 * otherwise achieve notability outside of college football.

However the project has not reached a consensus about how to apply these guidelines to active college football players. Most of the guidelines above apply only to historic players that have left active play in college football and gone on to other achievements like professional sports or coaching. This is not to say that current active players cannot be notable nor does it mean that every player on every team should have an article. It simply means that a set of guidelines or rules has not been established by consensus on this particular issue.

Before creating an article on an individual player, consider what makes them notable for an article and whether there are sufficient sources available to write a good article. Articles on living or recently deceased players must conform to the policy on biographies of living persons.


 * Please participate in the general player notability discussion going on right now.

Common arguments encountered-players
The following are some of the common arguments encountered against notability of a college football player.

Non-Notable: The player does not meet WP:BIO


 * The Short Answer: Please read WP:BIO a little more carefully.


 * As of this writing, WP:BIO states "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Players at the collegiate level can meet this notability requirement based on secondary sources published about their playing career.

Existence of NFL disqualifies college football The "highest level in amateur sports" section of notability from WP:ATHLETE does not apply to team sports if there's also fully professional league in the country.


 * The Short Answer: Please read WP:ATHLETE more carefully. The existence of the NFL does not negate the notability of college football.


 * Believe it or not, this argument is made from time to time. An editor will claim that because the National Football League exists, the first point in WP:ATHLETE then negates the second point in the same section, that "(c)ompetitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" would also be notable.


 * However, a cursory review will reveal that the section does not have a disclaimer of any kind. Also, even the most brief review of the guideline would reveal the "disqualification" argument to be flawed and not in line with the text of the rest of the guideline.


 * Additionally, college football is much older than professional football and is in many ways the dominante driving force of the sport. The first college football game took place on November 6, 1869 between Rutgers and Princeton.  The first "professional athlete" on record was 23 years later, when William "Pudge" Heffelfinger was paid $500 by the Allegheny Athletic Association for one game in 1892.  The world saw 51 years of active college football play before the American Professional Football Association would be formed with the first fully professional game played October 3, 1920.  Two years, later, the APFA changed its name to the National Football League.  As of the 2008 season, college football has been around for 139 years while the NFL has existed a mere 88 years.

The player is a bench-warmer The athlete does not play or hasn't played very much.


 * The Short Answer: Specialist Topics are often not well known


 * Notability in college football normally comes from being an active player, but it is not the only way a player can become notable. There may be other reasons for notability of a "specialist topic" within college football.  Katie Hnida and Daniel Ruettiger are examples of players with little playing time but accomplishing a unique or noteworthy place in college football.


 * Another example is Tim Tebow. During his freshman year, there were two attempts to delete his page as "non-notable" but those who followed college football closely picked up on the effort.  The members of this project fought and kept the article because it was widely accepted among the community that this particular player would rapidly become widely known (and was already notable among specialists), even though the general population was not aware of the player at the time.  While it is true that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" (see WP:CRYSTALBALL), this was a case where the college football specialists were able to sort out the importance of keeping an article when the general population of editors were unable to do so.

Every player does not deserve an article: There are too many players and pages throughout history for every college football player to have an article on Wikipedia.


 * The Short Answer: Aggreed, but so what? See WP:EVERYTHING


 * Wikipedia should not be about everything, yes. That does not mean that a particular college football player may not be notable.  WP:Everything states that the Wikipedia community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what should be kept.


 * This means that not every college football player should have an article--but that also does not translate into an argument that any given article about a college football player should be deleted. Because there may be a question about notability, there should be a specific reason to delete or not to delete.


 * This project has found that one editor's "everything" argument is another editor's "surmountable problem" (see below).

No information: The article is really short and has no information.


 * The Short Answer: Surmountable problem and


 * As the Surmountable Problem essay states, "even a poor article can be of benefit, and not so bad that Wikipedia is better off without it." Unless the article is harmful in some way, it likely should be improved instead of deleted.  So fix it!

No value to society It is a shame society places so much value on football, when educators like (your favorite college professor) go unnoticed.


 * The Short Answer: WP:IDONTLIKEIT


 * Where one editor may want to work on academic-related articles, others may choose to work on athletic related articles. Yes, society and the news media place more emphasis on sports than academics.  This project (and Wikipedia in general) recognizes that fact as an indicator of notability.


 * "Contribution to society" is not the only test for notability.

Too long ago This player hasn't done anything since college, and that was a long time ago


 * The Short Answer: Notability is not temporary


 * If a player was notable in 1950's (such as Heisman Trophy winner Pete Dawkins) and did little if anything after college football, that does not negate their contribution to college football. There is no need to show continual coverage after the period of noteworthy achievment occured.

Just an NAIA player This player only played for an NAIA school and is not notable


 * The Short Answer: Being an NAIA player does not "disqualify" from notability.


 * Just being an NAIA player does not make that player "non-notable" -- there are many NAIA players that have gone on to professional football (Derrick Ward), become notable head coaches (Jerry Kill), or otherwise met notability requirements. If the player is notable, they deserve an article.

Nothing on Google I did a Google search and can't find much of anything on this player


 * The Short Answer: WP:GOOGLEHITS


 * Google and other search engines are useful tools in determining notability, but are not the only rule. Even for modern-day players, it is highly unlikely that a first-round draft pick at offensive line will be written about through traditional news and web channels.

Player Notability Discussion Library

 * Articles for deletion/Jamario Thomas
 * Articles for deletion/Chris Crane
 * Articles for deletion/Tim Tebow
 * Articles for deletion/Tim Tebow (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Bryan Pata
 * Articles for deletion/Scooter Berry
 * Articles for deletion/Maurice Lloyd

Coaches
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Our project consideres all head coaches (past and present) of notable college football programs to be notable. Notable college football programs are further defined as NCAA (Division I FBS, Division I FCS, Division II, and Division III) and NAIA programs. This notability holds true provided that they coached a team for at least one official game.

Editors in the college football project know that there are editors outside the project who think this is an abuse of notability and do not like that it will create many stub articles. It also can be opposed by the "Notability is inherited" argument. However, there is a good deal of reasoning for this stance--enough, project consensus believes, to outweigh any inherited notability issues.


 * 1) Researchers on college football find it helpful to view what a peer coach had done in the same school, conference, or league--even if only for one season.
 * 2) For most schools, the head football coach is often times the most well-known (and highest paid) member of the faculty of that school--more than the college president, athletic director, dean of students, or head of the math department.
 * 3) For just about any college, a significant amount of the media coverage is about the major sports program (football, basketball, etc).
 * 4) The information is notable because statistics on the program are compiled and maintained across all time, and are readily available from multiple sources both on and off the internet.
 * 5) As our research grows, editors have found more and more coaches "inter-connect" between colleges.  Coaches may start at one school, then take a coaching position at another, and end up at a third or fourth school.  Harold Elliott is just one of many examples of articles that started out as just such a stub and has grown to a robust article.
 * 6) Creating even a stub article promotes collaborative editing over time.  Coaches move on to new schools, editors become enthusiastic about their new coach, historical information surfaces, and so forth.
 * 7) This criterion (and subsequent "inherited notability") ensures that the project coverage of college football coaches will be complete.  It also prevents "redlining" in the coach's navbox that is standard for each coach page.

Common arguments encountered-coaches
The following are some of the common arguments encountered against notability of a head coach.

Does not meet standards: The subjects do not meet any part of WP:BIO


 * The Short Answer: Please read WP:BIO a little more carefully.


 * As of this writing, WP:BIO states "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Head coaches at the collegiate level meet the notability requirement.

No Team Article: ''The team which they managed does not even have its own article. Surely if the team they managed was anyway notable it'd have its own article.''


 * The Short Answer: WP:OTHERSTUFF


 * Wikipedia is far from complete. The absence of a "team" article at any given time does not negate the need for a coach article for the team.

Sources Unreliable: ''The articles contain no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy. One editor stated, "Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources."''


 * The Short Answer: Verifiability and WikiProject College football/Reliable Sources


 * This project will often use the College Football Data Warehouse as it is considered a reliable source. This database is is linked to many, many pages on Wikipedia for statisitics and biographical information.  Not only has this website has proven time and again to be a reliable source of information, but it is maintained by an established expert on the topic and is relevant to the field.


 * Also, this particular website (and others like it) are used to pull statistical data, not opinion or point-of-view. The "reliability of source" test does not need to be as stringent for facts as compared to opinion.


 * Editors also will reference the school website itself for historical data on coaching changes, records history, coaching tenure, etc. The project consensus contends that there is no better source than the school itself for information on who the coach is at any given time.

Too Long Ago: ''This happened too long ago, there isn't any way to verify it online.


 * The Short Answer: Notability cannot be measured for some historical topics


 * This argument is made from time to time on historical college football data. Football scores from 1910 don't make today's newspapers very often, so editors rely more on "enthusiast" websites, college historical data, and offline sources.


 * Also, there is a difference between "verifiable" and "verified" -- Many times the information is verifiable thorugh off-line resources but may not be available on the internet.

This coach is too obscure No one has ever heard of this guy, he's only coached at a small school.


 * The Short Answer: Specialist Topics are often not well known


 * Notability does not necessarily arrive from being widely known, but can also arrive from the importance or uniqueness in the field. Generally, college football teams only have one coach at a time (there are rare instances of dual coaches, but then that is considered even more notable).  As an example, even though Oscar Dahlene only coached for one year at a small college in Kansas, he was the only coach that year of that school.  As a consequence, he was the only coach with his team's schedule--the only coach to play the teams he played, that year in that order.


 * This unique information is of great importance to those who study college football history.

Lousy Coach: The coach never won a game or hardly ever won a game


 * A coach having a "losing record" does not disqualify for notability. Notability requirements on Wikipedia specifically state that notability can come from an especially poor performance (such as Vinko Bogataj, the "agony of defeat").  Inside college football, Jake High (one scoreless 0-8 season), Ronald Beard (0-44 over 4 seasons), and George Allen (Cumberland) (who coached only one game and was defeated 222 to zero) as notable examples of coaches with exceptionally poor performances.

It's about the team, not the coach: The statistics are about the team results, not the coach


 * Like it or not, at the college level football teams are grouped and judged under the coach, and the coach is judged, hired, and fired based on the results of the team.

No History Needed: Maybe the current coach should be listed, but certainly the coach from a long time ago is not notable.


 * The Short Answer: Notability is not temporary.


 * The argument raises several quesitons: does this mean that the editor agrees that the current coach is notable, but then will become "non-notable" when that coach leaves the post--forcing deletion of the page? And if not, all the previous coaches were at one time the "current coach" -- so if holding the post is notable, then why would "no longer holding the post" suddenly and automatically make them not notable?

The article is too short There is really no information with this, it's just a stub.


 * The Short Answer: Review Stub


 * Stub articles are an important part of Wikipedia. Most articles get their start as stubs, and many stay as stubs for a very long time--maybe for all time.  Once a stub article has been created, other editors will also be able to enhance it.

Academic Standards We should hold coaches to the same academic standard we hold teachers to--the coach must be widely published.


 * The Short Answer: Compare to Notability (academics) -- A game can be considered the athletic equivalent to an academic published paper.


 * Some would argue that it is ridiculous to compare a football game to an academic paper. Bear in mind that even some of the smallest colleges and universities have stadium capacities of 3,000 or more, and many academic papers have a readership of much less than that.  Also, every major category from NCAA to NAIA have peer review rankings of the team on a week-by-week basis as well as pre-season and post-season rankings.  Not only do the peers (sportswriters and other coaches) review each game performance with scrutiny, they actually rank which team they believe to be better than the other.  Academic papers tend to have less scrutiny and typically do not have such a competitive ranking on quality.


 * In modern times, college football teams generally play at least ten game seasons. This means that there are eleven total teams involved for a given season (ten opponents plus the team itself).  The project editors contend that each game is the industry equivalent to an academically published paper.  Game summaries and statistics are published by both schools, the conference, at the home town newspapers of each team, the large regional or state newspapers, and the governing body (NAIA, NCAA, etc)--normally many national papers and newsworthy websites today pick up these summaries and statistics as well.  From there, sportswriters continue to develop and write their own articles and stories based on their information gathered, their research, thier conversastions, and thier observations.


 * Also, newspapers and news sources will print pre-game analysis each week. Even for very small schools, an entire season's worth of news media can result in the coach being quoted in over 20 newspaper articles in eleven different newspapers (figure 10 opponents and the hometown paper, and that is at only one article for each game-paper combination).


 * Add to that, even most of the smallest schools have a "sports information director" who is responsible for the distribution of all sports data and controlling media contact with the school. Sportswriters and peers use this information to formulate their rankings accurately.  The need for a sports information director to manage and distribute the information is a strong indicator of the demand for information on the topic.


 * In conclusion, the project determines that the demand for widely sought information is yet another indicator of notability.

Head Coach Notability Discussion Library
The issue of notability of coaches has been discused on many occasions on Wikipedia:


 * Articles for deletion/Oscar Dahlene
 * Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton
 * Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch
 * Articles for deletion/James A. Stevens
 * Articles for deletion/Sam B. Taylor
 * Articles for deletion/Hoover J. Wright
 * Articles for deletion/Prairie View coaches

Assistant Coaches
Assistant coaches, managers, and other staff subordinate to the head coach may or may not be notable depending on their accomplishments, past programs, tenure, and other factors. However, there are certain qualifications where an assitant coach would be considered notable:
 * assistant coaches who later become a head coach
 * assistant coaches who win the Broyles Award (an annual award given to honor the best assistant coach in college football)
 * assistant coaches who take over head coaching duties for a series of games due to the absence, illness, or death of the head coach (head coaches ejected from the game by officials is not considered an absence in this case)
 * assistant coaches who previously were notbable as head coaches
 * assistant coaches who are a significant part of a noteworthy event or achievement

Assistant coaches may be noteworth enough to mention in another article (such as a team article, a game article, etc., but that does not necessarily mean that the assistant coach has enough notability for an artilce dedicated to the assistant coach.

Officials
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Game officials and governing bodies of sports often take the stance that they prefer to keep the focus on the game and off of the officials. This stance is supported by the fact that the College Football Hall of Fame does not induct officials. Should the need arise to reference an official in an article (such as when officials make notable errors as the Fifth Down Game (1990)), editors are encouraged to simply use the term "the official" (general) or "the back judge" (specific offical position) instead of listing the name of the person fulfilling the role of the official.

Officals can obtain notability through other means, such as being a head coach. There is a List of NFL officials.

Administrative and other staff
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Like the head coach, the college football project considers the college or university athletic director (AD) to be notable. The reasoning is that the AD is responsible for the program of football as well as other sports and is heavily involved in scheduling games, hiring and firing head coaches, negotiating television and media rights, and long term development projects such as building stadiums. This responsibility has been determined by consensus in the project to be noteworthy activities. Also it is not uncommon for the AD to be the head coach of the football program and sometimes other sports as well such as basketball or track & field.

Past, present, and future (offically announced) athletic directors are considered notable.

Other administrative positions in college sports (such as assistant athletic director or sports information director) are non-notable positions. Naturally people in those positions may gain notability through other means.

Mascots
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Current and past mascots of notable schools are considered notable. Notable mascorts include:
 * 1) character mascots
 * 2) live animal mascots
 * 3) item mascots
 * 4) discontinued mascots.

Broadcasters and sportswriters
The project includes national broadcasters and sportswriters who work in a noteworthy capacity with college football. Some of these key people are involved in creating nationally recognized polls, where others are widely recognized for their contribution. Examples include Craig James (American football), Lee Corso, and Chris Fowler.

Fact vs Fiction
Fictional events or people in college football, such as the films The Program, Everybody's All-American, and Necessary Roughness are outside the scope of the project.

Many films and books are based on fact but have fictional components. On occasion, the project may point to movies and books that focus on events that really happened, such as the films Knute Rockne, All American, Rudy, and We Are Marshall. Wikiproject College Football will also coordinate with other Wikiprojects involved with those topics, such as WikiProject Films.

Bridge Article Deletion FAQ
Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Below are some of the frequently asked questions encountered concerning the creation, editing, and deletion of articles within the scope of the Bridges project. If you do not undertand the directions or just would like some help, post a notice on the Bridges project talk page describing what happened and ask for help.

Please bear in mind Etiquette during all deletion discussions.

Q: Someone deleted an article I posted... what should I do?
A: That stinks, but it happens. Here is the recommended method for handling a bridge project page that has been deleted.


 * 1) Don't panic.
 * 2) Be nice.
 * 3) Read Why was my page deleted?
 * 4) Follow the instructions at Why was my page deleted?
 * 5) Do not put the page back up immediately this can lead to all kinds of misunderstandings by the page being deleted again... and again... and being protected (locked)... and possibly even you as an editor being locked out of Wikipedia for a period of time.
 * 6) Be nice.
 * 7) Check the deletion review log to find the editor that deleted the page.  Politely ask the editor why it was deleted and ask the editor to restore the page.
 * 8) If that does not get satisfactory results, follow the instructions above and open a Deletion review.  You will likely get the page restored at least temporarily and can begin improvements, although that may not happen right away.  Even if the page should ultimately be deleted, this is almost always a worthwile effort as it helps to gain a better understanding as to what makes a good article in Wikipedia.

Q: The article I am working on has been marked for speedy deletion... what should I do?
A: Please know the difference between deletion and speedy deletion.  Here is the recommended method for handling a Bridge project page that has been marked for speedy deletion.
 * 1) Be nice.
 * 2) Immediately visit Template:Hangon and follow the instructions.  This will involve placing a "hangon" template on the page in question and giving a reason to prevent the speedy deletion.  Reasons such as "page is currently under development" or "currently revising page" should be acceptable.
 * 3) Check the history of the page in question to locate the Wikipedia editor who placed the speedy deletion tag.  Go to the editor's talk page and nicely ask the editor to consider removing the tag, giving a reason.  The editor will usually either remove the speedy deletion tag, or remove the speedy deletion tag and nominate the article for deletion.
 * 4) Read Deletion policy.
 * 5) Begin improving the article.

Q: The article I am working on has been marked for deletion... what should I do?
A: Please know the difference between deletion and speedy deletion.  Here is the recommended method for handling a bridge project page that has been marked for deletion.
 * 1) Be nice.
 * 2) Visit the discussion page for the article listed in the template (it will look like this: Articles for deletion/Chris Crane).  Read the comments why the editor believes the article should be deleted.  Do not respond right away, it is not necessary.  It is better to formulate clear arguments and prepare the article to meet the requested standards while giving a chance for your emotions to subside so you can (you guessed it) be nice.
 * 3) Look through the discussion page to determine who nominated the article for deletion and place the Template:BridgesNotability notice on the user's TALK page.
 * 4) Place the Template:BridgesPriority template to indicate intent to improve the article.
 * 5) Read Articles for deletion
 * 6) Notify the Bridges project by placing an entry on the project main page at WikiProject Bridges.  This is all you should need to do for notifying other bridge project editors to the situation.
 * 7) Be nice (it's really important!)
 * 8) There are two primary methods to respond or overturn deletion arguments:  a) overcome the deletion argument by enhancing or improving the article so that the deletion argument is no longer an issue, or b) respond to the deletion argument itself.  Use them in that order.
 * 9) Place the Bridge Project template on the article talk page if it is not there already.
 * 10) Place appropriate categories at the bottom of the article page.
 * 11) Look for articles that may link to the page--for example, an article about the community may have a place where a reference to this bridge can be made appropriately.
 * 12) Look for additional information and sources for the bridge.
 * 13) Be nice.
 * 14) Remove the Template:BridgesPriority template when complete.
 * 15) Also, be sure to consider the possibility that the article should be deleted.  That's what the discussion (and improvement time) will help to determine.

Q: The article I am working on has a notability tag at the top... what should I do?
A: This is when the article has not been nominated for deletion, but someone has expressed concerns to notability by placing the Template:notability template on the page (which, if unchecked, can lead to deletion). Here is the recommended method for handling notability concerns.
 * 1) Be nice.
 * 2) Consider the reasons given for the tag, it may be a legitimate request--either for more information, more detail, additional sources, or other concerns.
 * 3) Look through the history of the page to determine who left the notability template and place the Template:BridgesNotability notice on the user's TALK page.
 * 4) Place the Template:BridgesPriority template to indicate intent to improve the article.
 * 5) Begin improving the article.
 * 6) Remove the Template:BridgesPriority template when complete.

Q: The article I am working on has been dramatically changed by another editor... what should I do?
A: Relax. That's what happens in Wikipedia! If the changes improved the article, be encouraged! If you think the changes made the article worse, go to the article's discussion page (sometimes called a talk page) and engage other editors on the subject. Oh, and be nice.

If, however, you think that the changes are damaging to Wikipedia in some way (such as containing false information, vandalism, contains copyrighted material, etc.) then be BOLD and make further changes as you see fit. You can even undo the changes (and if it's obvious vandalism, you should). And, be nice.

Q: I am doing some major work on an article and would like to avoid edit conflicts... what should I do?
A: Read Template:Inuse for instructions. You can place the "in-use" header at the top of the page while you are completing major work. Please remove it when you have completed.

Q: I would like to create an article about a topic that has to do with bridges, but I do not see it covered in this essay... what should I do?
A: Be BOLD and create the article. Place the bridges project template (WikiProject Bridges article) at the top of the article's talk page and create a notification on the project home page about the new article. Also, make an entry on this essay's talk page about what you think was missed and why you think it should be added.

Q: I think that these guidelines should be changed/modified/enhanced... what should I do?
A: Start a discussion on this essay's talk page. Be nice and state your concerns. Project editors will be happy to engage and discuss your ideas.

TESTS
Test Test