Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John H. Rice (American football)


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

John H. Rice (American football)


I am also nominating the following related pages (see below for full explanation):
 * Withdrawn by nominator as sources were found to demonstrate notability.
 * All withdrawn, see bottom.
 * All withdrawn, see bottom.
 * All withdrawn, see bottom.
 * All withdrawn, see bottom.

This article proves only that the person exists and was once a coach of a college level team. The one source verifies only that the person coached the team, and only in a table along with all other coaches from this school. Per WP:ATHLETE, a college athlete/coach must have one a national award, been inducted into a relevant hall of fame, or gained national media attention as an individual. Given that this person coached in 1897, it is highly unlikely we will be able to verify any of that and establish notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have bundled in 5 more recently created coach articles. Each of these stubs relies upon 1 and only 1 source, and that source is a single line (3 lines in the case of one of them) in a table. That includes no biographical information other than name.  These are for seasons as short as 4 games, and no longer than 6. Previous stuck as I don't want anyone to think it's the number of games that is the issue Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC) This will not by itself qualify them under WP:GNG.  And, as stated above, they don't meet any of the special circumstances of WP:ATHLETE.  I can see that the creator of the articles is trying to build a "full history" of this college's coaches, but that simply isn't our purpose here.  WP:NOT makes it clear that our purpose is to provide encyclopedic information, not to catalog every fact that ever listed.   Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep extremely premautre nomination. These are head coaches of college football at the highest level.  Professional football either did not exist at the time or was in its infancy.  The guideline quoted above is not policy and is inclusionary, not exclusionary (see WP:ABELINCOLN).  Head coaches of college football programs are considered notable by the college football project (WP:CFBN) and are normally found to be so when time-tested (WP:CFBWEST).  Content provided is encyclopedic (albiet short) and articles are all valid stubs.  Multitudes of other articles are repeatedly found to be notable under WP:GNG.  There is a tremendous history of consensus here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Paul McDonald (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An interesting essay, that WP:CFBWEST (and the associated WP:CFBN), and one that I was not aware of. If those decisions established precedent in 2008, it is high time that such precedent be overturned. The subjects of these articles are not encyclopedic--the are about people who coached 4-6 games of a sport.  Then articles provides no information other than the year they coached, their win/loss record, and derived rankings.  That's the sports equivalent of WP:FANCRUFT.  WP:ATHLETE is already very generous in carving out a wide exception to WP:GNG for many athletes  under the presumption that "if the person meets one or more of these special, then they probably meet WP:GNG, even though we can't actually prove that they do."  While that's more generous than I would like, I bow to the community's consensus on this issue.  Why should the College Football Wikiproject be allowed to carve out a further exception, that, as far as I can tell, now says "all college football coaches are automatically notable?"   Obviously, if one or more of these articles were to get further sourcing and evidence that the subjects did something unusual, were covered in national newspapers, are now regarded as important for historical reasons, etc., then they could stay.  But the idea that the articles as written now deserve to be included in the encyclopedia seems to fly in the face of WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Quesiton 1 If coaching 4-6 games is not "enough" to be notable, what number would be the threshhold? Please review WP:NOTBIGENOUGH before answering.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As WP:NOTBIGENOUGH itself points out, the question is irrelevant. The only question that matters is whether they meet WP:GNG and/or WP:ATHLETE.  Note that for college athletes/coaches, no exception is carved out based on number of games played.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response my point exactly. Please strike your comments on the number of games coached becasue those comments are irrelevant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will strike them. I didn't intend for them to be a reason, but I don't want to confuse anyone. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Question 2 Rather than calling this "fancruft" (which is another way of saying "WP:IDONTLIKEIT"), what specifically about the article do you believe is unencyclopedic?--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is about a non-notable person, about whom we have verified a name, a win/loss record, and year(s) of coaching. WP:NOT (discussed in more detail below) and WP:N point out, in general terms, that inclusion in this encyclopedia requires some level of importance (usually, we use the term Notability). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response Verification of the name is a good thing and not a reason to delete. Having statistics and years of active involvement in coaching in the article is a good thing and also not a reason to delete.  What is left?  As I understand your statement: your position is that the individuals are not notable because you believe college football coaches are not important--or at least not important enough for inclusion here.  Am I correct on that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am stating that my opinion is irrelevant--our notability policies, both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE, state that being a college football coach is, by itself, not enough to establish notability. This is not to state that many college football coaches will not meet notability--many have and will continue to have multiple, non-trivial instances of coverage in reliable sources.  What I think is notable is not relevant--just as what WP:CFBN thinks is notable is irrelevant.  What matters is what the community has established as the mandatory minimum for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Question 3 You admit that the articles have at least one source. How then do they not meet WP:V and/or how would that apply here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess pointing to WP:V is not perhaps as clear as pointing to WP:N and WP:NOT. It is correct that the information currently included is verified, presuming that the reference is a reliable source (I was AGF'ing that it was).  What I was implying/thinking is that we will be fundamentally unable to verify anything more about these people, and thus we'll not be able to verify that these people are notable enough for inclusion.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response There are much more than likely many additional references available to verify. Many will be offline sources that will come together through colloaboration.  In a matter of 20 minutes, I found a lot more information on one of the articles (noted in this discussion somewhere).  It's not that other information isn't available, it's that the articles are so new that it hasn't been added yet.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Question 4 There are ten specific points on content under WP:NOT. Rather than members of the community discussing all of them, would you please explain which point or points are violated by these articles and in what way?--Paul McDonald (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance, depending on how you interpret the exact words, either WP:NOTMEMORIAL or point 2 of WP:NOTDIR. Quoting from the first, "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements."  Quoting from the second, "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)."  As I have asserted above, these people do not meet notability requirements.   Furthermore, they have not been, as far as is currently demonstrated, featured in several external sources.  In fact, so far as we know now, they haven't been featured in any external sources--occupying a line or two on a large table does not qualify as being featured. Again, to be clear, should there be evidence that these people do meet the notability guidelines, then the articles that do can stay.  If they don't now, but others in good faith claim they will in the future, then userfy them or move them to the Article Incubator unt
 * Response A/NOTMEMORIAL The pages in question are clearly not memorials of the coaches but the beginnings of articles about the coaches. You're using "NOTMEMORIAL" here in an attempt to artificially bolster a notability argument.  You think the subjects are not notabale, I think they are.  NOTMEMORIAL has nothing to do with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response B/NOTDIR #2 These articles are clearly not "Genealogical entries" either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I believe that we interpret policy by the whole of the document, in context; yes they're not specifically memorials or genealogical entries, but both parts, along with WP:N, tell us that article subjects must be notable. And your personal opinion on notability does not absolve you of the need to demonstrate that they are notable.  Again, I mean no disrespect to your chosen editing field.  As an outsider, I know nearly nothing about it.  That's why we have notability guidelines to help determine when a subject is or isn't notable.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response again, my point exactly. This is a plain and simple notability issue and the discussion should be limited to that.  The other arguments (NOTDIR, NOTMEMORIAL, V, and NOT) have no place here.  On a separate note, I can appreciate your civility on this issue and find the discussion pleasant:  we all want what's best for Wikipedia, and I enjoy your enthusiasm even if it differes from mine.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment in about 20 minutes, I was able to find a good deal more information on Edward Fauver, including a photo. He coached for at least 8 seasons at three colleges/universities for at least 57 games.  Nominator attempted to speedy the first article within two minutes of its creation, and this is evidince that such a move is premature.  Wikipedia is far from complete and I'm going to bed.  Cheers!--Paul McDonald (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize again (as I already did on your talk page) for the speedy nomination. It was wrong of me to do so.  Nonetheless, I hold firm in the belief that notability requires immediate verification.  This is no different than how we delete articles about random companies with no verification that they are notable. I agree that Wikipedia is far from complete--and I further believe that creating stubs like these is a step away from completion, not towards it.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On Edward Fauver--Great! I've struck that from the list above.  I'm not sure if I should remove the AfD tag from the article or not (this is only the second or third time I've bundled Afds).  Now you still have almost 7 days to source the rest or let them be incubated/userfied until such time as they can be sourced.  Again, football coaches are not one of the small, special category of subjects that are automatically presumed notable (I'm thinking of settlements and taxa here that have that exception)--they, like any other article, the subject must be demonstrated notable to have an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, let me say that I think WP:NSPORTS is not that limiting regarding coaches; just about any coach of a top-level team nowadays (and in the past) is going to have sufficient coverage. The award and hall of fame criteria almost make it sound like a lot fewer coaches are notable than is actually the case. With my little rant over, I must say that I'm unsure that coaches from a Division III team (which Alma is) should be considered notable unless there's strong evidence of sources discussing them, though I don't know if they were competing at the top level in the early 1900s. My gut says to delete most and keep C. E. Woodruff, since he coached for a season at major-conference program Iowa State. The chances of finding sources for a coach of a big program are much greater than for one of a minor team; the media tends to focus on the big programs, and the coach probably did something notable for the big program to notice him and give him the job. Of course, if sources are found discussing the other coaches I would be more than happy to reconsider.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment we're talking pre-1900's college football here: the NCAA didn't even exist until 1906.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep for all of these articles. Let's review a few facts.  Between 1896 and 1932, Alma played Michigan State 31 times in football.  They also played a number of other teams currently competing in NCAA Division I including Notre Dame (four times between 1913 and 1916).  The current NCAA divisions were not created until 1973 and the NCAA had no class distinctions until at least 1937.  The NFL was not founded until 1920.  Thus, coaches like John H. Rice (American football) were effectively coaching at the highest level of play for the sport of American football. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all (and request that nominator withdraw C. E. Woodruff, as he coached Iowa State, which is a current highest division program). As for the others: Alma played Michigan State five times and Central Michigan three times in the five years covered by these coaches&mdash;both of which are currently highest level Division I FBS programs. There were no divisions at this time, and the NCAA predecessor, the IAAUS, was not created until 1906. The NFL did not form until 1922 (and even then was seriously small-time until the 1970s). During this early period, all college teams were in contention to be named national champions and have players named All-Americans by the prominent selectors of the era. Therefore, they were playing at the highest level of the sport. Strikehold (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all of these fully sourced articles. College football during this era was the highest level of the sport and including these early coaches provides historical content that would otherwise be lost to antiquity. — J04n(talk page) 14:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Duffy was the starting fullback for the 1896 Michigan team that was one of the top teams in college football at that time. There was no NFL, and the top collegiate teams like Michigan, Wisconsin, Chicago, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton were the highest level of play.  The article is also well-sourced, particularly for a player/coach of this era. And Woodruff was a head coach at a Division I school, Iowa State.  Cbl62 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I withdraw the entire nomination, given that the articles now appear to have sufficient sources to establish notability. I could make a full closing statement about my position, but I guess it doesn't really matter now and I'll just go on my way.  If anyone wants to raise the issue of the nomination, feel free to do so on my talk page.  Qwyrxian (talk) 16:41, 29 November 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.