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 The consensus has spoken, all hail the consensus. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Dahlene[edit]

Oscar Dahlene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is scope creep without a doubt. College football is not professional football, and articles on college football coaches with no independent sources really don't come close to satisfying the sourcing and notability requirements for living individuals. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (again) This is the third time that this article has been nominated for deletion. The first two times the consensus was KEEP, why should it change now?

• "Scope Creep" doesn't apply--"it's not pro football", of course not. That's why it's a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football.
• See previous discussions on this article at Talk:Oscar Dahlene
• See similar discussions on similar articles with consensus of "Keep"
  • Mike Gottsch
  • Oscar Dahlene
  • Fred Clapp
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fay G. Moulton
• No new reason for deletion has been proposed

There is no new argument for deletion here, and all of the old ones still stand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think he's a living individual (given that he coached the 1910 season) but there are no independent sources, and every article needs those. Just because some articles in a class are notable does not mean they all are. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And consensus can change. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Yes, consensus can change, but it usually doesn't change overnight--or even in a few months. However, editors can become weary from multiple rapid-fire deletion proposals.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does Ottawa University have a historically important program, or something? I'd say any coach at a big-name school would be automatically notable, but an article like this might be pushing things a bit. Zagalejo^^^ 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response You can read about it at Ottawa University Braves and learn about how they have been playing football since 1891 and their state-of-the-art Peoples Bank Field, credited as the best small-college football venue in the country. The school was a charter member of the Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference and the forerunner of that conference was the first group to adopt a definite set of rules and regulations (previously schools set their own rules and you played by the rules of the home field school). As school sizes grew, the conference split to form the "Big Six" (now Big 12 and "Little Six" (now KCAC). Glad you asked.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So, were there any notable players on the team? Did the conference receive any attention outside of the Kansas area? I generally fall on the inclusion side of these debates, but I'm still not sure about this. There are lots of high school coaches who are more demonstrably notable than this guy. Zagalejo^^^ 04:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then go write an article about the high school coaches. Joe Paterno is more notable too, but that doesn't disqualify Jerry Kill.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there's actually something to say about Jerry Kill. What about my first two questions? Zagalejo^^^ 04:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Confused What were the first two questions? Would you mind repeating?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Were there any notable players on the team? Did the team (or conference as a whole) receive any attention outside of the Kansas area? If you can show that Ottawa had a reputation as one of the nation's elite teams, then I'd support keeping the article, even in the absence of biographical details about the coach. If not, though, I think we're going way below the common threshold for notability. We could still mention the coach somewhere else, but I don't see the need for an individual article about him. Zagalejo^^^ 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying!

1. Were there any notable players on the team?: I was unable to find any 1910 Ottawa football players in the NFL, but the NFL didn't form until 1920... I'll keep digging, but that's a tall order!
2. Did the team (or conference as a whole) receive any attention outside of the Kansas area?:Yes, both actually. The conference was the first conference to adopt a uniform set of rules. The school was one of 17 that, at the time of the big "rules changes" discussions to make football safer, wanted to actually cease football all together and replace it with Rugby or Soccer! (crazy, huh?) Along with BYU, Stanford, Missouri... it was in an old NYT article with a link I've sadly misplaced...

Does that help, at least for now?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... I guess I'll go with weak keep. It's harmless, it's been expanded with actual biographical details, and it's potenitally useful for research. Plus, there's precedent for keeping articles like this. Eventually, we should have a broader discussion about notability for small college coaches, but until that happens, we might as well just leave the article be. Zagalejo^^^ 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — No reason has been given to override precedent, therefore, the article should remain. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Miserably fails even the most open, general notability guidelines. Zero news sources available to establish notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neutral Sorry Paul, but a NAIA coach from 1910 isn't notable. We should consolidate all the coaches with the short information we will ever obtain about them on the football article. MECU≈talk 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's say for a moment that I would agree that a coach from 1910 would not be notable, but the coach from 1909 might be and the coach from 1911 might also be. Now we're working on the project, we then find out that the two notable coaches get big articles but the little old 1910 coach does not. Now we've got a vacant space (i.e. a redline), and researchers may begin to wonder "Was football not played that year at the school? Why not?" or "We see that the school played that year, who was the coach?" and then we would find that notability could indeed arrive from not doing a superior job. Why was that coach's record different? At that point, the absence would become more of an issue than the presence. Completeness can be a very good thing... just something to think about.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment And, of course, there's the purpose of cross-reference research. I've added the standard game table for the one season he coached, including scores and opponents. Now suppose that someone is researching University of Kansas football, and runs into the 1910 season when KU was 6-1-1, and wants to know what the opponents were like and how those coaches performed for the season. It's possible this way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed to Neutral since there are many more references added now, but like some of the people below, most of the article isn't about the coach but about the season (his playing time the exception), for which the information could be better placed on "Early years of XXX football". But with the references and player information that couldn't belong elsewhere, and expansion beyond what I ever thought it could be, I'm torn. I could see the article being deleted, but kept as well. MECU≈talk 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a stand alone article this isn't appropriate because of the reasons given by others above. This is the type of information that would be good to include in an article called Ottawa University Braves football or the like. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first challenge with thast is this school has had 29 football coaches and a united page of all coaches would be rather clumsy. The second challenge is that the pages and information would be (at least I think) less likely to grow and interlinked. For example, Jerry Kill and Harold Elliott started out as just such a single page, and as research blossomed, they grew to robust pages of information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Both Kill and Elliott have coached NCAA D1 schools. Information on them actually exists. It seems that all we know about the Ottawa coaches (with a few exceptions) are their coaching records. Zagalejo^^^ 19:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Good Ol’factory. I'd also like to note that, of the entire article, only the first sentence (apparently unsourced) is actually about the subject of the article. The rest is about the performance of the team he coached as part of his career, and properly belongs in (for example) a history of that team. Jakew (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fairly or unfairly, head coaches are judged by the success and failure of the teams they coach. This judgement based on their record extends to the hiring entity, the media, the fans, and the opponents.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That may be so, and it's doubtless true of people who work in many fields. However, it raises serious questions about whether the subject is notable independent of the team, or whether the team (including its history) is notable, and the coach warrants brief mention in this wider context. Jakew (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"*Comment Normally, teams are historically viewed by who the head coach was during that time (under "this coach" or "that coach") rather than a season by season basis.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I've been asked to review the changes made to the article, and I'm afraid that my position hasn't changed. Seraphimblade's comments of 13:55, 20 May 2008 sum up the problem well, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not opposed, however, to merging some of the material into a "history of XXX football" article. Jakew (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article is not even really about the subject (more about the team's performance, which should be covered in the team's article), and there don't appear to be significant secondary sources available to correct the problem. No independent sources, no article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was asked to reevaluate the article, and have done so. While it is true that an additional factoid (he was a college president for a few years too) and some sources have been added, it appears to be window dressing. The sources either (in a couple cases) have links which do not even work, and for those that do, mention the subject only in passing or trivially, or are primary. No substantial independent sources, no article. So to be clear, I stand by my rationale of delete for the version of the article as of this writing, or any other, as it appears as far as I can find, substantial independent sourcing on this subject simply does not exist. A bunch of Wikiproject members liking it does not change that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found the one broken link to Emporia Gazette, simply a misspelling. What other links did not work? Everything links fine when I attempt on my PC...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The question of broken links was not my main concern, and yes they all work now. My main point was that the "sources" are trivial, passing mentions, in several cases only name drops, in others offering only a sentence or so with no substance. Substantial sourcing is required to support a separate article, not just "the guy got mentioned here or there." If you could show me a source that goes into substantial depth about the man, not the team, I would agree that a separate article on the man rather than a brief mention in the team's article is warranted. Otherwise, we should follow our sources' lead, and do as they do, mentioning him only briefly in context of the team. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I wasn't exactly looking for you to repeat your opinion again, I just wanted to know what links you found that were broken so they could be fixed. But thanks!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Yes, I am a member of the Wikiproject on College Football, so my opinion could be construed as biased. But, I am a member of the project because I am a fan of college football and I love learning everything I can about it....I even like learning about the coaches of the smaller schools. To fans of the sport, these coaches are notable. I would hate to see Wikipedia become a place where we can't learn about past coaches. One of the problems is that Wikipedia is geared more for the present, considering most sources come in the form of web site links. And naturally, there isn't going to be much available on these coaches in that form. But there are a lot of people who want to learn about these coaches. Seancp (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Information After further research, I have learned that he was a member of the 1908 9-0 undefeated and 1909 8-1 teams at the University of Kansas. To top it off, he later became the president of Pritchett College in Missouri, and apparently this school's first president used the facilities to complie major work on the history of the discovery of the Great Red Spot.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:Some things to consider":

• Oscar Dahlene was not a NAIA coach since it was founded 1937
• Sub dividing of NCAA did not happen around late 1930’s meaning he was coaching at the highest level of College Football at the time.
• In the late 1890’s and early 1900’s teams we considered major powers were playing and losing to other schools that we now considered small college. For example Ohio State played and lost to Oberlin, Wittenberg and Ohio Wesleyan. West Virginia played and lost to West Virginia Wesleyan. Kentucky played and lost to Transylvania and Centre. If you look at the article Ottawa University played Kansas the year Dahlene coached them.
• Why is Oscar Dahlene less significant than Arthur Smith (an article I wrote)? Smith only won one game and that was against a club team. Was it because the administration many years latter decided to play football at the highest level? Is it because 50 or so years later Maimi was able to hire several coaches that ended up in the College Football Hall of Fame so it became know as the Cradle of Coaches? I would guess that 99.999% of Miami University fans would not even know Smith coached at the school.
• Why is Harry Jacoby a significant coach? He coached Boise State when they were a junior college and had a career losing record. If Ottawa University decided to move up to Division 1A? Is Oscar Dahlene now a significant coach because some administration 100 years later made a decision to emphases football?09er (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Other things need deleted too is not an argument that this does not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. I crossed out any of my above commit that deals with that. I still stand by my keep for the fact that in 1908 and 1909 he was playing at the highest level of American College Football and in 1910 he was coaching at the highest level of American College Football.09er (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hope that whoever looks at this now and sees a slight favor of delete realizes that most of those delete votes came before a lot of the new information was added about Dahlene becoming a college president and being a key member of the 1908/1909 KU football teams. Some people came in and made delete comments, then have not returned since the article has significantly improved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Most of the new sources still miserably fail, but collectively, I think they assert some tiny modicum of notability; enough to keep it and hope it gets improved with some more RS so it doesn't get AfD'd again. In its current state, it's still a deletion waiting to happen. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a general comment, please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Repeated nominations, I thought it might apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Mild form of WP:Hey Article now can be said to "come close to satisfying the sourcing and notability requirements for living individuals". Other stuff existing does seem to address the concern that "College football is not professional football" as far as how we treat it here. No concerns left. Seems a perfectly fine encyclopedia article to me. Mind you, I'm looking at a version only two added refs on from the version Celarnor is looking at above, so I guess YMMV. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't like forum shopping; if this received a Keep twice before I don't see this as a valid nomination, but I trust Guy so he must have some reason. From the discussion it sounds like the article has improved during this AfD. I also question the implication that it fails BLP when the man must be dead by now, and if he isn't then that's probably notable. Assuming good faith on some of the citations, they appear to be from independent verifiable sources. Clearly there are a lot of primary sources cited to document the content, but that should not detract from the notability, as long as we have adequate recognition from a sufficient number of secondary sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been to AfD before, as I understand it, just to be clear. I think the position is that it was nommed for speedy twice and not taken to AfD in light of arguments that it was a valid stub, met wp:bio, and accorded with a consensus demonstrated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch. McDonald went to ANI to complain about administrator behavior rising out of this article, so you may wish to view the nom as a slap on the wrist for doing so, or perhaps that's just where JzG came across it. In any case, it picked up a few delete votes based on the state of the article at the time, so seems a valid enough nom. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure if it was a speedy delete or whatever before nominated, but you can read about it at Talk:Oscar Dahlene. Although the above "special contributions" supports the same position I do on this article, I want to clarify that it was not me and I would rather people register when making comments and changes. It's probably an oversight on the part of the editor, but I like being clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's an oversight? Registration isn't necessary to comment here, nor should it be. I don't have an account and never did. No need for paranoia.86.44.28.186 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not paranoid... it's just that sometimes other people are. No worries!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep so far we have consistently held college presidents to be notable. Even of small colleges. DGG (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've had a lot of good discussion on this one. Are we ready to come to a conclusion on this discussion? It's been over 5 days. Reference Deletion Discussion for policy. We have 7 editors in favor of "keep", 4 that support "delete", and two that modified their position of "delete" to either "Weak Keep" or "Neutral". I know that we're not looking for a "popular vote" to decide consensus, I just wanted to summarize the results.

I propose that in light of the discussions, the existing content changes, and the two previous discussions on notability that a consensus of KEEP has been reached. We should then keep the article and remove the AFD tag.

Any objections or discussion?? Anyone think that a consensus has not been reached, or that my summarization is incorrect or that I missed something?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2008 (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.