Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F. P. Reed

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 no consensus. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

F. P. Reed

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NSPORTS. Reed wasn't really a football coach (as a job): he was a student at the College who during his studies coached two regional games of the team, and that's his whole career. There is no reliable source giving significant attention to him: what we have is a database listing, a very passing mention, another passing mention in a primary source, and another very short mention in a book in a short section about his family. Nothing really about him, and why should there be? Looking for sources not in the article yet doesn't yield anything. Presumably there can be found some mentions in routine game coverage in local newspapers from the period, but nothing that would get him past the WP:BIO requirements. Fram (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a New York Times article mentioning him. This is from 1892 and mentions him on the list of those who would edit the yearbook for Dartmouth College that year. I think we are all agreed that being on the production team for a college year book is not a sign of notability. There are lots of these early college football coaches who we should not have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with sources in the article. Typical outcome for college football head coaches are to keep the article, especially for those that the highest level of the sport (which in 1892 is "college football").--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of these sources do you mean? I analysed them all above, and none of them comes close to meeting the GNG requirements. And calling every college football program "the highest level of the sport" makes it a very, very broad "highest level", with some regional games without a real competition. The "highest level of a sport" should at the very least be at national level. Fram (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, 1892 was still the early days for American football, and there were no teams playing on a "national level". Doane was at least playing the game regionally, as evidenced by its 1892 game vs. Illinois (> 500 miles distant from Doane). Cbl62 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, analysis requires opinion and personal preference. Based on the time period this works. The term "highest level" is used in WP:SPORTBASIC.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term "highest level" is used in SPORTBASIC, in the sentences "a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). " This is obviously not an international competition, never mind one at the highest level like the Olympics. Please don't use such quoted terms out of their context, which in thise case makes it clear that it doesn't apply here. Fram (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So are the words "for example" --Paul McDonald (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with sources in article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of them meets the GNG requirements? Most are passing mentions or primary sources. Fram (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article do not come anywhere close to meeting GNG: in source 1 Reed is merely listed among thousands of others in a general catalog; he receives a one-paragraph mention in source 2; source 3 is a one-line listing of student newspaper editors; and sources 4-11 are primary. I have done my best to look for sources but admittedly I don't have access to many historical archives. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I'd like to request that this article be userfied to my user space in the event that the result of this discussion is delete. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: Just a note that draftspace is the preferred area for drafts instead of user subpages nowadays. Per WP:COPYARTICLE, "[Userspace] [p]ages that preserve material previously deleted, without an active attempt to address the reasons for deletion, if left live, may be deleted by tagging with {{db-g4}}." Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.