884:
1995) whereas you take it to mean "the highest level of the amateur levels of a sport". I think both are valid interpretations of the sentence (don't you just love the ambiguity in the
English language). However I think common wikipedia usage is more towards my interpretation. As stated above we don't automatically think the top plays in amateur football (soccer) are notable (there's a whole bunch of AfDs to support this). Likewise we don't have articles on the top amateur tennis players, top amateur baseball players etc. (unless they're notable for some other reason under general notability guidelines). Now I accept the situation in American Football is different to all these sports
216:- Notability does not necessarily arrive from being widely known, but can also arrive from the importance or uniqueness in the field. He was the only coach with his team's schedule--the only coach to play the teams he played, that year in that order. To the untrained eye, yes one college football team 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
209:-- offline sources do indeed exist, as exist for all college football coaches through the massive ammounts of record keeping in the media. Just because you can't find it on GOOGLE doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and football coaching records from 1949-1952 fit into that historical category. 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.
549:
actively involved in the writing of it. Many, many, many people have viewed and reviewed the essay. The essay has stood up against multiple AFDs in the past and even been referenced on projects outside sports as a model notability essay (Knowledge (XXG) Airports, I think). The broader community has been convinced. Yes, consensus can change, and the project welcomes all input on that consensus--but here is not the place to do it. And for the notability/athlete/people project, I think we already have... but I'll go there right now.--
1739:
with championships; but for a small college coach with an undistinguished record holding the position for 4 years only and associated with no major developments of any sort--this is just plain unreasonable. I accept specialized guidelines, but they have to meet the test of common sense as judged by the overall community. I'll defer to those particularly interested as long as they're reasonable about it, and in this case they are not.
139:. There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person. He has coached this college team, that is not disputed, but that's about all there is to say about him. His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable, and there are no other facts which would make him notable. While he does meet the notability essay of the College Football project, this essay is so far remote from
282:. Beyond that, I've no great confidence in their ability to set notability criteria if they assert that every coach who has ever coached a college game is notable, or that any level of college football below NCAA Division I is the "highest level" of amateur sport in that field. That's not "setting" a thing; that's declaring that everyone is notable, and that's an end run around
1110:, I'd guess that other people than the actual sportspeople are generally considered to count under WP:ATHLETE. I'm well aware that other stuff exists, and that we're not debating whether baseball umpires should have articles, but please consider that "competitors" apparently isn't always interpreted as meaning just the people actually playing.
531:
does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action." There is even an active notability discussion for athletes over at
1168:
there. Instead of moaning about this discussion being held at AfD why don't you consider this an oppurtinity to start to form a wider consensus on at least one part of the college football guidelines. I also suspect that this will be a bit like a test case and that many other coaches will be nominated if it succeeds.
349:
school. But that is now. This coach was at the position from 1949 to 1952--before the NCAA began to divide into divisions, and the school was an NCAA school at the time. So without question the team was at the highest level of amateur sports at the time. While today, the program may be performing
1259:
are simply not met. The basic problem here is that the wikiproject involved doesn't seem to agree with
Knowledge (XXG)'s scope and policy. However, Knowledge (XXG) is not a universal wiki, it is not a wiki farm, if the rules are not adequate for your project, the most sensible course of action is to
1140:
Wikiproject yet has the power to override broad, explicit policy and guideline. While my somewhat harsh answer to Paul's legitimate question of "How can we get more?" is "If you can't, you have no meaningful consensus," this AfD must still be decided on black letter, official policy and guideline.
839:
as although this could be argued to be the top level of the amateur game, football (soccer) is, as a sport, a professional sport and there are many more notable layers above it. In the case of college football there's the NFL. I accept it's not an exact comparission given the importance of college
760:
is that it should apply to amateur sports or at least sports that were amateur at the relevant time. American football is not amateur so I do not think falls under this category. Even if we accept that this guideline is meant to cover college football I doubt there would be many editors that would
1738:
I would be prepared to accept assumed notability for the coach a a major college team; i would probably accept it for someone who had in some way a seminal or historic role possibly even within the college; I would possiblyy accept it for even a small college where the coach's tenure was associated
1167:
Even ignoring the fact that it is perfectly within wikipedia policy to discuss this here, it is also seems to me to be the best place for it as I bet many people with an opinion on this subject don't even know the college football project exists and are even less likely to comment on the guidelines
921:
and accept that people may intpret things differently do you. Just because they do doesn't mean it's not valid - I accept that your inpretation is a valid one I just disagree with it. Why can't you do the same with my interpretation? I'm not adding anything in to it, in this context I would take
849:
up to the mid-nineties, where no player was professional so would never have qualified under the first athlete criteria despite the league they were playing in having a similar standing to the top league in professional sports. This clearly does not apply for college football as the pinnacle of an
509:
states "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community." I would say that requests for input to 12 projects, contact to all editors on the CFB team, and over 100 links to other articles/user pages would at least be close to "adequate exposure" -- how can we get
1083:
As this guy plainly fulfills the college football project's criteria, why are you seeking to have just this article deleted? Perhaps it would be more productive, if you believe the criteria to be contrary to overall notability standards, to seek to overturn the project's criteria and then revisit
883:
I have read it carefully - it's only one sentence! It's basically all down to interpretation and what you take "highest level in amateur sports" to mean. As stated above I think this to mean "the highest level of a sport where the entire sport at all levels is amateur" (e.g. Rugby Union prior to
548:
I would say that the twelve projects that I notified are not exactly a "limited group of editors", plus with the listing among the essays category, the newsletter announcements, and other measures taken--it's not like two or three people got together and decided this--just that a few editors were
530:
also holds, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale," and "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject
311:
Why this article? Quite aside from that this tiny school with no history of NCAA football at any level makes a lot better case for non-notability than a contemporaneous coach at Penn State or
Harvard? If you run into an article that doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, it's suitable for the
130:
Contested prod, basically because "the
College Football wikiproject consensus is that college football head coaches are notable". You can see the discussion about this on the article talk page. Basically, I disagree with this blanket notability agreed upon by this Wikiproject, which is in direct
1367:
It has been discussed to my satisfaction. I didn't see much of a counter argument regarding : 1) coaching as opposed to competing; 2) the "highest level" of college football; 3) lack of non trival coverage. I read people's points, I formed an opinion, I did not feel I needed to reiterate points
967:
isn't a reliable source for members of the US Congress) that someone was a legislator, that's sufficient to prove notability and to keep the article. We have no more reason to require lots of nontrivial coverage of this man than we do of government officials and professional sportspeople.
492:
Yeah, and the other people that responded, too. Please don't say that because three editors are enthusiastic about a topic that no one else responded when in fact they have. Yes, I am the editor who "passionately pursued" keeping and am "the thread that ties it together" -- thanks for the
151:
as to make it not supported by global consensus, but only by a very local one. I have suggested making a list of head coaches for this college where this info would be available, with only individual articles for the truly notable ones, but that seems to be unacceptable.
1283:
Okay, I'll bite: Exactly how is the head coach not a competitor, how is
College Football not the highest level of the amateur sport, and exactly how does "amateur sport" need to be re-defined? It's not enough to just say "they are not met" -- how are they not
1141:
No such policy or guideline supports retention of a biographical article for a subject without any meaningful, reliable sources, no biographical information whatsoever, no evidence of notability and who means none of the explicit secondary criteria under
1008:
is "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Paul is quite wrong; West coached nowhere near the highest level of amateur football as would have been defined either then or now, and was not, so far as we know, a competitor.
1039:
or something like that. If a coach deserved more information, then simply have a "see main article" branch within the article on the group of coaches. I think all the information present in this article would be appropriate for that merged article.
465:
notable bit. Taylor had broad notability outside of football. Wright was inducted into the US Track and Field Hall of Fame. And so on and so forth. Truth be told, the thread linking all those AfDs are the passionate Keep votes made by yourself,
224:
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. Additionally, detailed historical analysis continues on games that have already been
868:
more carefully. The second point says "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" not "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports unless there is a professional league for that sport."
761:
consider "Division III" top level. Given the coverage college football recieves in
America I would have no problems with coverage of some of the players / coaches for the top teams but I seriously doubt this would stretch to Division III.
844:
guidelines, which of course many will, although this coach does not. My understanding, and intpretation, was that the "amateur sport" criteria was written to include players at the top of a sport when the entire sport was amateur, e.g.
1634:- Our notability guideline doesn't really cover coaches, which I consider a weakness. However, it doesn't matter in this case. I couldn't find anything online to establish notability, which a low-level college coach would need.
902:
Yes, it is only one sentence... so why are you adding so much to it instead of just what it says? I hate to be harsh in discussions like this, but seriously: If you know it's only why sentence, how can you be getting it so
1031:-- It appears we have an interesting situation where someone has built a series of coach articles for a D-III school that would otherwise be considered acceptable for a D-IA (now FBS) school. Here's my suggestion:
453:* None of those are discussions of your private notability essay. In the case of Dahlene, it is a heavily sourced article for the coach of a major program who wound up being a college president, a post that
177:
Nominator appears to be "forum shopping" -- editor admits to not liking the resulting discussion on the talk page and wants to try again. By itself, not so much--but mixed in with the rest, worth noting
753:
requires non-trivial coverage. IMO mentions in record books etc is almost certainly going to be trivial probably listing no more than his record. The coverage in the link provided looks trivial to me.
270:
football, it is scarcely forum shopping to point out the obvious and ongoing fact that the various
Wikiprojects have not, yet, been given the authority to write notability guidelines that overrule
922:"amateur sports" to mean "a sport where the entire sport is amateur" - I only expanded it above to make that clear. I would add that I am far from the only person to intpret it like that - see
1401:
258:: "This page is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is
1185:
Be happy to. Already invited users from over 12 other projects, commented and participated in multiple AFDs, listed the essay in the wikipedia essay category, worked with comments on
123:
1102:
By the way, I consider "signifcantly more non-trivial coverage" (which is what it said when I placed my "keep") to be equivalent to "lots". Anyway, seeing how many people we have in
580:
One online source is given. Yes, we like more. Please understand the difference between "verifiable" and "verified" -- sources must be "verifiable" and not necessarily "verified"--
434:
1758:, per DGG; do not accept arguments of the keep people to be sufficient to ignore the site-wide policy, and a Wikiproject does not make policy that can override site-wide policy.
963:
1255:. Upon reading everyone's arguments. It appears unless we redefine the meaning of "competitor", "highest level" and only for a certain value of "amateur sports", criteria in
1298:
NAIA football is not remotely the highest level of college football, and no coach advances a football as much as a yard on the field of play; indeed, the current wording of
430:
422:
1128:
the overwhelming definition, actually; competitors are those who compete. As you say, this AfD isn't about baseball umpires, although I agree they don't qualify under
414:
426:
410:
418:
266:'s assertion of how important every college football team is might not be shared by the average football fan in reference to a program that only last year started
840:
football in the US but in my opinion it's enough to make this criteria inapplicable and mean that competitors in college football will have to meet the general
1189:, ... what else should the project do? The project has asked and asked, but no one seems to want to comment on the essay, only on individual articles. Per
1588:— I will add that WikiProjects may establish their own guidelines and policies, they should not be of lower standards than those of the community at large.
213:
1061:
1614:
since the concept of notability varies so widely between sports. Still, it's almost always the case that
Wikiproject criteria is a good bit tighter.
1457:. WikiProjects do not get to redefine notability requirements for articles in their purview and this guy clearly does not meet the agreed standards at
1657:, and I'm tired of these five-person Wikiprojects making up their own notability guideline which they think the whole WP community must abide by. --
498:
262:
a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's." Quite aside from that I feel completely confident that
1232:
This isn't personal. The college football project is not "my crew" (we have our disagreements). This is about making
Knowledge (XXG) better.--
532:
1103:
1036:
835:
My point is that although college football is amateur, american football as a sport is not. We do not have articles on players in the
90:
85:
17:
94:
1136:'s general (and far stricter) criteria. That being said, my position - and that of Knowledge (XXG) policy, come to that - is that
957:
As stated by Paul, this man competed at the highest amateur level, which WP:ATHLETE guarantees to be notable. It's basically like
1664:
1219:," and no one responds one way or the other, I'll cheerfully concede that you've obtained project-wide consensus that it does.
888:
it's a general guideline and it would be really odd if people interpreted it one way for one sport and another way for others.
77:
1478:
RGTraynor is completely correct. Besides, keeping based on an essay from a
Wikiproject would set an extremely bad precedent.
1057:
598:, but constitutes trivial mention, as the only information about West given is his won-loss record and the years he coached.
1035:
all coaches were weren't notable enough (i.e. went on to a bigger program or professional league) into an article about
1782:
36:
526:
I don't conflate people voting Keep in AfDs with them participating in adopting a consensus policy at a Wikiproject.
385:
else seems to wholly concur. You seem to be conflating lack of comment to Knowledge (XXG)-wide consensus to overrule
205:
Nominator states "There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person" --
1107:
381:
other editors even commented on it besides yourself, one of those editors pretty much uniformly panned them, and
232:, an amateur sport at the highest level. Consensus has repeatedly supported notability for this accomplishment.
1781:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1518:
228:"and there are no other facts which would make him notable" except that he was a head coach for three years in
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1691:
1534:
1466:
1767:
1750:
1728:
1696:
1673:
1649:
1622:
1597:
1580:
1555:
1539:
1522:
1497:
1470:
1446:
1419:
1383:
1348:
1334:
1318:
1293:
1275:
1241:
1227:
1202:
1177:
1153:
1119:
1093:
1073:
1049:
1021:
995:
977:
958:
935:
912:
897:
878:
859:
820:
793:
725:
704:
683:
662:
645:
606:
589:
558:
543:
519:
482:
446:
397:
359:
327:
294:
244:
206:
161:
59:
1344:
1289:
1237:
1198:
1069:
908:
874:
816:
721:
679:
641:
585:
554:
515:
461:
notable. In the case of Moulton, the nomination was withdrawn because he was an Olympic athlete, another
442:
355:
240:
1414:
187:
and the discussion should go there, not on this particular article. Why this article? Why this coach?
1372:
hence my mention of it. I read it as including those sports that don't have professional competition.
778:
was an accepted standard then I might disagree but as it isn't it's perfectly proper to bring it here.
1669:
1643:
502:
53:
1712:
1603:
1510:
1369:
1299:
1129:
1005:
923:
865:
757:
633:
386:
279:
148:
1514:
836:
373:
It was? Have you any evidence of that? That aside, I just took a close look at the talk page for
81:
774:
I agree with the others that state that this is a perfectly acceptable place to discuss this. If
1688:
1593:
1576:
1531:
1441:
1377:
1328:
1269:
315:
Per deletion policy, it is explicitly the duty of editors who wish to save an article to provide
1687:. Please would he /she who closes this please delete all coaches with similar non notable bios.
918:
1368:
already made, so I didn't. I'm also not quite sure how "amateur sport" is to be interpreted in
775:
764:
709:
693:
374:
255:
170:
1340:
1285:
1233:
1194:
1115:
1089:
1065:
973:
961:: if we have a single reliable source (if Geneva isn't a reliable source for its coaches, the
904:
870:
812:
717:
675:
637:
594:
The online source given is not only the college's own website, which is not "independent" per
581:
550:
511:
438:
351:
342:
263:
236:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
986:
we need some and I've yet to see any as the one reference in the article is clearly trivial.
341:
Yes, the essay is not a policy or guideline. And yes, this year Geneva College will play in
199:
140:
136:
1763:
1610:, and there's broad consensus that it should be tightened. There's just no consensus as to
1408:
808:
229:
1607:
1571:
may be necessary on the contradictory guidelines established by this specific WikiProject.
1568:
1506:
1458:
1256:
1216:
1190:
1142:
1133:
864:
The existence of the NFL does not negatge the notability of college football. Please read
713:
689:
671:
651:
629:
621:
617:
527:
506:
494:
275:
195:
191:
184:
144:
132:
1659:
1636:
1552:
1173:
1045:
991:
931:
893:
855:
789:
756:
My reading of "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" from
654:, but in the end it isn't pertinent to this debate, as it has no actual policy standing.
467:
50:
1260:
migrate to a separate, specialized wiki, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
316:
493:
compliment. But I haven't tried to bulldoze it either. Invitiations for discussion on
1615:
1479:
1311:
1220:
1146:
1014:
697:
655:
599:
536:
475:
390:
320:
287:
157:
73:
65:
1212:
1208:
1186:
1010:
983:
841:
768:
750:
625:
595:
283:
271:
1746:
1724:
1589:
1572:
1436:
1373:
1324:
1265:
471:
308:
Alerting Wikiprojects of pertinent AfD discussions is a courtesy, not a requirement.
202:
but does not state how that violation occurs. We would be thrilled to discuss at ]!
1547:- coaching for three years at a minor college is not an indication of notability --
1111:
1085:
969:
505:
check shows well over 100 articles/user pages/talk pages that link to the essay.
111:
1430:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
1759:
1564:
1462:
846:
497:
have been sent out to at least twelve other related WikiProjects listed at the
1548:
1169:
1041:
987:
927:
889:
851:
785:
747:
coverage which is also non-trivial if it's to be kept. More detailed points:
217:
535:; why not post your criteria there and see how many people sign off on it?
221:
153:
1013:
does not require "lots" of nontrivial coverage, but it does require some.
501:
as well as inclusion in the College Football Project Newsletter. A simple
1741:
1720:
345:, and I think (but am not sure) that the previous year Geneva was an
771:
especially as it's not been adopted and doesn't look close to being.
1261:
180:
Nominator failed to notify other editors about the re-nomination.
1775:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
346:
982:
We have no reason for lots of non-trivial coverage but as per
670:
that the reason the nominator gave is specifically because of
220:
and/or bracket seeding in tournaments. Even ESPN.com ranks a
1717:
No Wikiproject gets to give their favorite topic a free ride
692:
is linked in the nomination? He seems to be speaking about
435:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Prairie View coaches
1339:
Discussed, yes... but not to completion or resolution.--
1211:
to say "Our criteria supercedes the general criteria of
118:
107:
103:
99:
1402:
list of American football-related deletion discussions
431:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hoover J. Wright
423:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/James A. Stevens
212:"His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable":
1037:
Geneva College Golden Tornadoes head football coaches
964:
Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
415:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton
1435:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
427:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sam B. Taylor
411:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Oscar Dahlene
319:. We cannot just assume that such sources exist.
303:
And to address a couple other of McDonald's points:
743:as not notable. Needs proof of signifcantly more
419:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch
286:I doubt many Wikipedians would find acceptable.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1785:). No further edits should be made to this page.
437:-- You will find much more than three editors.--
350:at a lower or lesser level, it doesn't matter.--
235:And for all the other reasons on the talk page--
1306:coaches because it was not felt they should be
183:Nominator openly states that the issue is with
1505:- as per nom. Appears to fail both the basic
1207:And when your crew posts to the talk page on
8:
377:, and realized that, in point of fact, only
1606:is the most notoriously loose guideline of
214:Specialist Topics are often not well known
926:which has been accepted by many editors.
616:oh and I'll ask again: exactly how does
1400:: This debate has been included in the
533:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (people)
1323:This has been discussed above already.
1000:There is no evidence that the subject
850:American Football career is the NFL.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1104:Category:American football officials
1056:Discussion invitations were sent to
811:not an amateur sport? Seriously.--
24:
1004:he was a coach. The language of
389:, and that's pretty startling.
1768:13:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
1751:21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1729:13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1697:07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1674:05:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1650:03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1623:05:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1598:23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
1581:23:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
1556:18:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
1540:16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
1523:16:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
1498:16:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
1471:15:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
1447:15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
1384:00:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1349:20:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1242:00:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1193:, silence implies consensus.--
936:11:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
913:20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
898:01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
879:00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
60:13:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
1420:17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1335:17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1319:14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1294:14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1276:22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1228:18:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1203:14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1178:21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1154:21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1120:20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1094:20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1074:19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1050:19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1022:19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
996:18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
978:17:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
860:21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
821:14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
794:17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
726:18:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
705:17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
684:17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
663:17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
650:There are many problems with
646:16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
607:17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
590:16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
559:14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
544:19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
520:18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
483:17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
447:17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
398:16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
360:16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
328:16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
295:16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
245:16:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
162:14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1802:
1132:either and must rely upon
688:Would you point out where
194:is in direct violation of
1563:per nom. Also agree with
1108:Category:Baseball umpires
312:deletion process, period.
1778:Please do not modify it.
1602:Mm, yes. As it stands,
696:, as far as I can tell.
32:Please do not modify it.
474:in almost every case.
190:Nominator says that
745:non-trivial coverage
1715:wasn't bad enough.
837:Football Conference
499:Family of Projects
173:and points below:
131:disagreement with
44:The result was
1685:Comment / request
1449:
1422:
1405:
1382:
1333:
1274:
1076:
1062:American Football
917:Please try to be
343:NCAA Division III
1793:
1780:
1694:
1667:
1662:
1646:
1639:
1619:
1537:
1495:
1492:
1489:
1486:
1434:
1432:
1417:
1411:
1406:
1396:
1376:
1327:
1315:
1268:
1224:
1150:
1124:Mm, that really
1084:this question?
1055:
1018:
809:college football
701:
659:
603:
540:
479:
457:been held to be
409:the following:
394:
324:
317:reliable sources
291:
230:college football
121:
115:
97:
56:
34:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1783:deletion review
1776:
1692:
1665:
1660:
1644:
1637:
1617:
1535:
1493:
1490:
1487:
1484:
1428:
1415:
1409:
1313:
1222:
1148:
1016:
807:Exactly how is
767:does not trump
699:
657:
601:
538:
503:What Links Here
477:
468:User:JKBrooks85
392:
322:
289:
117:
88:
72:
69:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1799:
1797:
1788:
1787:
1771:
1770:
1753:
1732:
1731:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1689:Kittybrewster
1677:
1676:
1652:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1558:
1542:
1532:Kittybrewster
1525:
1500:
1480:Andrew Lenahan
1473:
1451:
1450:
1433:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1321:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1097:
1096:
1053:
1052:
1026:
1025:
1024:
998:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
797:
796:
782:
781:
780:
779:
772:
762:
754:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
611:
610:
609:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
523:
522:
450:
449:
401:
400:
365:
364:
363:
362:
333:
332:
331:
330:
313:
309:
305:
304:
298:
297:
254:To quote from
248:
247:
233:
226:
210:
203:
188:
181:
178:
128:
127:
74:Walter J. West
68:
66:Walter J. West
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1798:
1786:
1784:
1779:
1773:
1772:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1754:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1737:
1734:
1733:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1707:
1704:
1698:
1695:
1690:
1686:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1675:
1672:
1671:
1668:
1663:
1656:
1653:
1651:
1647:
1641:
1640:
1633:
1630:
1624:
1621:
1620:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1559:
1557:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1541:
1538:
1533:
1529:
1526:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1501:
1499:
1496:
1481:
1477:
1474:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1439:
1431:
1427:
1426:
1421:
1418:
1412:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1341:Paul McDonald
1338:
1337:
1336:
1332:
1331:
1326:
1322:
1320:
1317:
1316:
1309:
1305:
1302:specifically
1301:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:Paul McDonald
1282:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1267:
1263:
1258:
1254:
1251:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:Paul McDonald
1231:
1230:
1229:
1226:
1225:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:Paul McDonald
1192:
1188:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1163:
1162:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1144:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1066:Paul McDonald
1063:
1059:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1020:
1019:
1012:
1007:
1003:
999:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
980:
979:
975:
971:
966:
965:
960:
956:
953:
952:
937:
933:
929:
925:
920:
916:
915:
914:
910:
906:
905:Paul McDonald
901:
900:
899:
895:
891:
887:
882:
881:
880:
876:
872:
871:Paul McDonald
867:
863:
862:
861:
857:
853:
848:
843:
838:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
822:
818:
814:
813:Paul McDonald
810:
806:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
795:
791:
787:
784:
783:
777:
773:
770:
766:
763:
759:
755:
752:
749:
748:
746:
742:
739:
727:
723:
719:
718:Paul McDonald
715:
712:is a part of
711:
708:
707:
706:
703:
702:
695:
691:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
676:Paul McDonald
673:
669:
666:
665:
664:
661:
660:
653:
649:
648:
647:
643:
639:
638:Paul McDonald
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
608:
605:
604:
597:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
582:Paul McDonald
579:
576:
575:
574:
573:
560:
556:
552:
551:Paul McDonald
547:
546:
545:
542:
541:
534:
529:
525:
524:
521:
517:
513:
512:Paul McDonald
508:
504:
500:
496:
491:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
481:
480:
473:
472:User:VegaDark
469:
464:
460:
456:
452:
451:
448:
444:
440:
439:Paul McDonald
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
405:
404:
403:
402:
399:
396:
395:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
369:
368:
367:
366:
361:
357:
353:
352:Paul McDonald
348:
344:
340:
337:
336:
335:
334:
329:
326:
325:
318:
314:
310:
307:
306:
302:
301:
300:
299:
296:
293:
292:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
264:Paul McDonald
261:
257:
253:
250:
249:
246:
242:
238:
237:Paul McDonald
234:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
207:WP:GOOGLEHITS
204:
201:
197:
193:
189:
186:
182:
179:
176:
175:
174:
172:
168:
164:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
57:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1777:
1774:
1755:
1740:
1735:
1716:
1708:
1705:
1684:
1670:(yada, yada)
1658:
1654:
1635:
1631:
1616:
1611:
1585:
1560:
1544:
1527:
1502:
1483:
1475:
1454:
1442:
1437:
1429:
1397:
1378:
1329:
1312:
1307:
1303:
1280:
1270:
1252:
1221:
1182:
1164:
1147:
1137:
1125:
1080:
1054:
1032:
1028:
1015:
1001:
962:
954:
885:
804:
744:
740:
698:
667:
656:
613:
600:
577:
537:
489:
476:
462:
458:
454:
406:
391:
382:
378:
370:
338:
321:
288:
268:Division III
267:
259:
251:
166:
165:
129:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1709:Non-Notable
1530:- per Nom.
1410:Fabrictramp
1308:prima facie
1064:projects.--
959:politicians
847:Rugby Union
407:Please Read
1713:WP:ATHLETE
1638:Giants2008
1618:RGTraynor
1604:WP:ATHLETE
1511:WP:ATHLETE
1416:talk to me
1370:WP:ATHLETE
1314:RGTraynor
1310:notable.
1300:WP:ATHLETE
1223:RGTraynor
1149:RGTraynor
1130:WP:ATHLETE
1017:RGTraynor
1006:WP:ATHLETE
924:WP:FOOTY/N
866:WP:ATHLETE
758:WP:ATHLETE
700:RGTraynor
658:RGTraynor
634:WP:ATHLETE
602:RGTraynor
539:RGTraynor
478:RGTraynor
393:RGTraynor
387:WP:ATHLETE
323:RGTraynor
290:RGTraynor
280:WP:ATHLETE
218:bowl games
149:WP:ATHLETE
1002:competed;
776:CFB:COACH
765:CFB:COACH
710:CFB:COACH
694:CFB:COACH
375:CFB:COACH
256:CFB:COACH
222:bottom 10
171:CFB:COACH
147:and even
1711:. As if
1590:MuZemike
1573:MuZemike
1438:lifebaka
1374:Equendil
1325:Equendil
1281:Quesiton
1266:Equendil
1165:Comment.
919:WP:CIVIL
903:wrong?--
620:violate
614:Question
490:Response
463:de facto
459:de facto
124:View log
1586:Comment
1304:deleted
1112:Nyttend
1086:Nyttend
1081:Comment
970:Nyttend
578:Comment
510:more?--
339:Comment
252:Delete:
225:played.
200:WP:NOTE
141:WP:NOTE
137:WP:NOTE
91:protect
86:history
1760:Daniel
1756:Delete
1736:delete
1706:Delete
1666:crewer
1655:Delete
1632:Delete
1608:WP:BIO
1565:Stifle
1561:Delete
1545:Delete
1528:Delete
1507:WP:BIO
1503:Delete
1476:Delete
1463:Stifle
1459:WP:BIO
1455:Delete
1284:met?--
1257:WP:BIO
1253:Delete
1217:WP:BIO
1191:WP:CON
1143:WP:BIO
1134:WP:BIO
1058:Sports
805:HUH???
741:Delete
668:Except
632:, and
630:WP:ORG
622:WP:BIO
528:WP:CON
507:WP:CON
383:no one
371:Reply:
276:WP:ORG
196:WP:BIO
145:WP:BIO
133:WP:BIO
119:delete
95:delete
46:delete
1645:17-14
1567:. An
1461:etc.
1262:Wikia
1183:Reply
1170:Dpmuk
1042:Bobak
1033:Merge
1029:Merge
988:Dpmuk
928:Dpmuk
890:Dpmuk
852:Dpmuk
786:Dpmuk
714:CFB:N
690:CFB:N
672:CFB:N
652:CFB:N
618:CFB:N
495:CFB:N
379:three
192:CFB:N
185:CFB:N
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
1764:talk
1747:talk
1725:talk
1661:brew
1612:how,
1594:talk
1577:talk
1519:talk
1515:fchd
1513:. -
1509:and
1467:talk
1398:Note
1379:Talk
1345:talk
1330:Talk
1290:talk
1271:Talk
1238:talk
1215:and
1213:WP:N
1209:WP:N
1199:talk
1187:WP:N
1174:talk
1116:talk
1106:and
1090:talk
1070:talk
1060:and
1046:talk
1011:WP:N
992:talk
984:WP:N
974:talk
955:Keep
932:talk
909:talk
894:talk
875:talk
856:talk
842:WP:N
817:talk
790:talk
769:WP:N
751:WP:N
722:talk
680:talk
642:talk
626:WP:N
596:WP:N
586:talk
555:talk
516:talk
470:and
443:talk
356:talk
347:NAIA
284:WP:N
272:WP:N
241:talk
198:and
169:per
167:Keep
158:talk
154:Fram
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
1742:DGG
1721:Kww
1569:RfC
1553:rex
1491:bli
1407:--
1404:.
1145:.
886:but
716:.--
674:.--
636:?--
455:has
278:or
260:not
1766:)
1749:)
1727:)
1648:)
1596:)
1579:)
1521:)
1494:nd
1488:ar
1485:St
1482:-
1469:)
1443:++
1413:|
1347:)
1292:)
1264:?
1240:)
1201:)
1176:)
1138:no
1126:is
1118:)
1092:)
1072:)
1048:)
1040:--
994:)
976:)
934:)
911:)
896:)
877:)
869:--
858:)
819:)
792:)
724:)
682:)
644:)
628:,
624:,
588:)
557:)
518:)
445:)
433:,
429:,
425:,
421:,
417:,
413:,
358:)
274:,
243:)
160:)
143:,
135:/
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
51:ff
48:.
1762:(
1745:(
1723:(
1719:.
1693:☎
1642:(
1592:(
1575:(
1551:-
1549:T
1536:☎
1517:(
1465:(
1343:(
1288:(
1236:(
1197:(
1172:(
1114:(
1088:(
1068:(
1044:(
990:(
972:(
930:(
907:(
892:(
873:(
854:(
815:(
788:(
720:(
678:(
640:(
584:(
553:(
514:(
441:(
354:(
239:(
156:(
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
55:m
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.