Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Larsen


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Larsen

 * – ( 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 also was a head coach at University of Chicago, added several sources." Upon an examination of the links in the article, not a single one of them discuss Larsen in substantive detail, as WP:RS requires, and half of them are simple collections of stats. Beyond that, the creator implies that the University of Chicago is, and was during Larsen's tenure, some big-time athletic school and therefore confers notability on its coaches. This is not the case; Chicago plays in Division III, a full three rungs below major college football and the lowest level of sport the NCAA sanctions at all. The article has been completely unimproved in over a year and a half. This article should never have been restored, and should be promptly deleted as failing WP:BIO and the GNG both.  Ravenswing  10:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think many programs that have been both DI and DIII have coaches for their entire history considered as notable people here on WP. Since Chicago has such a storied history from the Amos Alonzo Stagg days, I think he is an important component to the complete history of Chicago football.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep clear-cut case of a bad faith nomination. FIRST:  The "promptly restored" statement, which would seem to indicate merely a few days.  In this case, the restoration took from November 2, 2008 until June 26, 2009, over seven months.  SECOND:  Nominator supplies a "creator implies" section, stating that the article creator (yes, that's me) implied that the school was a "big-time program" and yet avoides the statement in the article about the "modern era" when the school reinstated football at the Division III level.  THIRD:  Nominator calls for "prompt" deletion, implying a call for a speedy deletion instead of even having the discussion.  Personally, I'm not sure by "promptly" the nominator means "right this minute" or  the regular AfD discussion time period or seven months.  FOURTH:  Nominator states that "The article has been completely unimproved in over a year and a half" to which I have two responses:  a)  this is just not true either, as a simple check of the article history can provide, and b)  who cares if it hadn't changed a bit in a year and a half, that's not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: You're right on the "year and a half;" I meant half a year, and that's about the only accurate statement you make. As far as the absurd notion that I'm calling for a speedy here, I've been on Wikipedia for seven years and have participated in hundreds of deletion discussions, and know very well the difference between AfD and speedies, but if you were genuinely curious, you might have considered asking without violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.  Moving along, of course you implied that Chicago is a big-time program; why else would being a coach there confer automatic notability that being a coach of a far smaller and more obscure school did not, and why would that mere assertion suddenly qualify the subject for an article?  Finally, you fail to address the article's failure of the GNG.   Ravenswing  12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/Good Faith/Civility Please refer to Articles for deletion/John D. Schwender where it seems we are having the same discussion. It should likely be here because I beleive that the bad faith violations are more prevelant here--they have sadly become linked.  I have made no personal attacks and am simply calling to the Wikipedia community to review what I believe to be lies posted by the nominator, as well as providing evidence to support it for the community to review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Request/accurate statement You stated that "that's about the only accurate statement you make" in your comment and then accuse me of not being civil. Okay, I can take it.  Please take the statments I made that you find not truthful and let's address them point by point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/Big Time School History shows that the article Revision September 23, 2009, (edited by Huangdi) confirms that the program was an NCAA Division III School. While I did not make that edit, I thought it was a good one.  It's been in place over six months.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/Nominator's experience I'm sure you have been on Wikipedia for quite some time, but I don't see how that is a reason to delete the article. Why would you post such a statement??--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/Speedy-promptly Okay, you don't mean to speedy delete. Just strike the word "promtly" from your nomination.  Until then, the statements are adding undue weight and distracting from the issue at hand--the article being considered for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 6 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 truly "significant."  While Carroll and Chicago have had significant declines in their programs in recent years (including the years when Larsen was coach), both schools have historically had significant programs.  Carroll played big-time football throughout the pre-World War II era, was involved in the game in which the first forward pass was thrown, and has produced 13 NFL players.  Chicago has won two national football championships and seven Big Ten championships, produced several members of the College Football Hall of Fame (e.g., Berwanger, Des Jardien, Eckersall, Herschberger, Maxwell), and is the place where football giant Amos Alonzo Stagg made his name.  Admittedly, neither Carroll nor Chicago has had a major football program in many years (even decades).  This makes it a tough call on Larsen or other recent coaches at these schools.  However, if we conclude that these two programs are significant (as they certainly were in the first half of the 20th Century), WikiProject Football's encyclopedic approach to coverage of such programs supports articles for head coaches of these programs.  Accordingly, I lean towards keeping the articles. Cbl62 (talk) 16:46, 10 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.