Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Schwender


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

John D. Schwender

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable small college football coach, whose article was deleted at AfD two years ago. The article was userfied at the creator's request, and promptly restored by the creator with the claim that "Discovered sources and notable events." Upon an examination of the links in the article, three of the five are broken. One is a single paragraph that doesn't mention the subject's name, the second a scarcely longer clip about the shutdown of the football program; neither source is, as WP:RS requires, about the subject or discusses him in substantial detail, and I strongly suspect that the broken links did no better. The article has been completely unimproved in over a year. This article should never have been restored, and should be promptly deleted as failing WP:BIO and the GNG both.  Ravenswing  10:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following article, which likewise was deleted in the original bundled AfD and was restored by the creator using the exact same sources and links as the previous one:




 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep setting article content aside, nominator states "promptly restored" which implies a matter of days, when in reality almost two months of research passed, and only after conferring with the deleting admin. Anyone can check the history and confirm this blatant exaggeration.  As for reasons to keep, head coach of a a school that at the time was at the highest level of college football competition at a time well before organized professional football came in to prominence.  Where the school and team plays now is not a concern, where it was then is the issue:  1899-1905.  With that, this subject clearly meets WP:ATHLETE.  Busted links can and should be fixed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment "Promptly" in the case of the Mark D. Nave article is over three months. Really starting to smell like a bad faith nomination.  See also Articles for deletion/Robert Larsen.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: You mean a nomination you do not like, perhaps, but opposing a nomination doesn't transform it into "bad faith" by that fact alone. That being said, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published  secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."  You have proferred none on either subject, at any stage.  You've also proferred no evidence backing up your assertion that a small Midwestern college was contemporaneously considered at the "highest level of college football competition," which of course anyone familiar with the history of college football knows is not the case, even presuming the heavily disputed premise that WP:ATHLETE includes coaches, which the text has never supported.   Ravenswing  08:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply/bad faith I think it's safe to say that I like it and you don't--big deal move on. What makes it bad faith is (especially in light of your nearly identical nomination listed above) is that you are lying and grossly misleading the Wikipedia community in your nomination.  That is reason alone to close this AfD and the other listed above to at least have a good faith discussion about the content of the article itself.  When the nominator makes gross exaggerations and/or lies about the article (which you have, and is plainly evident through this and the other discussion) then it's time to just shut down that discussion and open a new one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply/top-level school this can be verified at WikiProject College football/Amateur and NCAA History. NCAA didn't even form until 1906!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) You're claiming your own personal essay on whether college football generally is notable as "verification" of Carroll College's status as a top flight football school? (b) Why, yes, the NCAA did indeed only form in 1906. Who claimed otherwise, and what does this have to do with the discussion? (c) If you're bucking for a RfC, keep up with the insults and WP:AGF violations.   Ravenswing  12:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/good faith Okay, I'll bite: How should I assume that you lied in good faith?  You specifically stated that the three articles were "promptly restored" after deleted.  This means that you must have checked the history.  And since you checked the history and got it wrong, I'm led to beleive that you either lied about checking, or your checked and lied about the result.  I suppose it's possible that you don't understand the meaning of the word "promptly".  Which is it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/insults No insults here. I have been very careful not to make any personal attacks.  Yet I also believe that this is a bad faith nomination and have provided evidince for it.  I cannot stand by and let what I believe to be a bad faith nomination go by without submitting the evidince to be reviewed by the Wikipedia community.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/essay Yes, I am referencing an essay where I was a primary contributor. That's why Wikipedia encourages the writing of essays.  Essays are commonly cited for their reasons throughout AFD discussions for multiple reasons, ranging from clarifing group thinking to saving space.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/NCAA the date of the formation of the NCAA is pertinent here because Carroll College was competing at the highest level of American football at the time. There was no NCAA, no NAIA, no "divisions", no "olympic gridiorn football", and no NFL.  Therefore, WP:ATHLETE is clear--Carroll College was competing at the highest level of the sport available.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In order to have proper encyclopedic scope, WikiProject College Football has endeavored to establish articles on the head coaches of the significant college football programs.  That does not mean that every coach at every small college should have an article.  The question is which programs are "significant."  Carroll College played big-time football in the pre-World War II era, was involved in the game in which the first forward pass was thrown, and produced 13 NFL players in the early days of the NFL. Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Attacks on the nominator aside the reliable references are about the closing down of the team not the coach and this is effectively an unsourced BLP with a whiff of attack page since its so unbalanced. Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, national press coverage of central events. The situation here would be improved if the contents of both versions of the article, which are quite different, were combined to expand the current version. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, At the time in question Carroll was not a small college team. Per Cbl62, they seem to have a strong presence in the sport. Just because a school is small college now does not mean if always has been.  See Chicago, Oberlin, Washington and Jefferson, Dickerson, Centre, etc.09er (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.