Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch

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. GlassCobra 08:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gottsch

Non-notable coach. Fails WP:Bio StudierMalMarburg (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject College football considers all head college football coaches (past and present) notable. Mike Gottsch is the current head coach of Tabor College (Kansas), a member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics and more than meets the notability qualifications. However, I have added a bit more to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if every small-time coach with a losing record is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry, then why not every faculty member at those same colleges? Certainly their contributions to society are far more notable than a coach who teaches students to play with a ball? Yet we don't consider them notable unless they've published significantly. Whether WikiProject football considers this coach significant or not, the bottom line is that he's done nothing other than get a job at a small-time college. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Wow, those are really harsh words. But remember, you brought it up... so here's the answer.

For starters, the "small-time faculty member" is not the head of the department, so it's not even a fair comparison. As a parallel, the college football program does not automatically consider assistant coaches to be notable.
In any given year, even a small college will have maybe 30 to 50 faculty members, but only one head football coach. So just saying "faculty member" isn't enough.
For most schools, even small ones, the head football or basketball coach is often times the most well-known (and highest paid) member of the faculty of that school--more than the college president, athletic director, dean of students, or head of the math department.
If someone wanted to make a Wikipedia:WikiProject College Professors or even a more detailed Wikipedia:WikiProject College Physics Professors then they could sure do that--wouldn't bug me. And maybe that's a good idea--but I'll stick with my interests on a well-established project for now.
For just about any college (large or small), a significant amount of the media coverage is about the major sports program (football, basketball, etc).
Not every sports head coach is considered notable... for example, there's a volleyball project that decided head volleyball coaches don't automatically qualify for notability.
Just having a "losing record" does not disqualify for notability--in fact, notability requirements on Wikipedia specifically state that notability can come from an especially poor performance (such as Vinko Bogataj)
The phrase "small-time" coach is inappropriate here, because there really isn't a "definition" of "small time" -- it's an opinion-based phrase.
The "size" of the school (which you appear to be alluding to in your comment about "small time") does not disqualify for notability. Many small colleges are proving grounds for coaches that go on to great fame. Jerry Kill, Bobby Ross, John Outland, and Dennis Franchione are just a few of many examples.
People who do research on college football find it helpful to view what a peer coach had done in the same school, conference, or league.
By saying "the bottom line is that he's done nothing other than get a job at a small-time college" reflects an attitude that you may personally have against college sports, and it's also not a completely accurate statement. What this particular coach has done is to be named to the head coaching position at a National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics member school, coached the school's football team for an entire season, and by all accounts will be the head coach for the next season. While it is obvious that you don't think that's worth much based on your comments, other people do have interest in this material.
You state "why not every faculty member at those same colleges? Certainly their contributions to society are far more notable than a coach who teaches students to play with a ball?" There are lots of poitns in this statement:

- I believe that most college faculty members actually don't make significant contributions to society--if they did, then they would publish more.
- Although many college professors are indeed great people and very hardworking, teaching "English Composition I" just like pretty much every other Comp I instructor nationwide is certainly not a noteworthy act.
- College professors that do indeed bring significant contributions to society do so through the publication of papers, books, and acknowledgement from their peers. Then they get an article in Wikipedia (if someone writes it, that is)
- Your phrase "teaches students to play with a ball" shows a bias toward sports programs at the college and university level. The beneifts of leadership and self-development skills of college sports is well-documented.
- It seems that your entire argument is biased -- something like "academic study is way more important than sports, and all things sports should be removed from Wikipedia." While I agree that more students go into academics and even most college athletes do not go into professional sports, it does not negate the validity and notability of college sports.

Those are just some of the reasons. Perhaps you should visit Wikipedia:WikiProject College football--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as it stands right now, the article might as well be deleted, but it would be better if it could be expanded. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Paul McDonald explanation above. PG Pirate 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Paul McDonald. At first glance, the argument against seems to be based mostly in WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it is a rather stubby article. Still, that's no reason to delete, particularly considering the fact that WP:CFB has already defined collegiate football coaches as notable by default. There are literally hundreds of other college football head coach articles out there, and to delete one in particular is absurd. Yes, it should be expanded as soon as possible, but that's no reason to delete it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, head college football coach -> notable and deserves article. Being a stub is not grounds for deletion. Perhaps the nominator should learn from their own words about being involved in things they don't know about. MECU≈talk 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never nominated this article because it is a stub, nor did I nominate because I do not like it. Quite frankly, I'm indifferent to it altogether. I nominated it because he's an indistinguished coach who has done nothing of note, and I don't consider being a newly-hired football coach at a small college enough to be notable. If he's made a significant contribution to the sport, then yes he's notable. But if he's simply "a department head," then that does not make him any more notable than any of the academic department heads at Tabor College, regardless of whether they've published or not. That's it. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Ah, but he has done something of note--he's coached an entire season of college football at a NAIA institution and likely will coach for at least another season. And the consensus has always been that this is a noteworthy achievement. If you want to argue that small college head football coaches in general are not notable, then please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and make your case. While you're doing that, can you please respond to the twelve points I listed above?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a school this small, it doesnt make sense to consider the head coach notable. About 700 students. DGG (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response why should the number of students enrolled have any bearing on the notability of the coach? At one time, Notre Dame University was a very small school with a little-known football coach by the name of Knute Rockne, who was one of the most influential coaches of all time. Still, I'll entertain the idea of creating a "cut-off" point based on enrollment if you like, and even make it a guideline instead of a rule. Here's a link to the USDOE lsting on post-secondary education based on enrollment count. A quick review shows it to be an incomplete list, but that said--exactly where should the cutoff be, and why?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a clearly notable subject; the article is short so far but stubs are meant to be kept so they can grow. It has sufficient sourcing already to prove notability. Also, the 12 point explanation above is well-reasoned and very persuasive. Johntex\^talk 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE Right now, it's looking that four are in favor of keep, two are in favor of delete, and one that says keep if expanded (done) or delete as-is (and I'm not counting my POV).

Just as a note, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion states:

"The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, 
are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't 
find, any independent sources of sufficient depth."

With that, here's the google search] for "Mike Gottsch", "Tabor", and "football".... any objections to removing the AFD tag?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:14, 17 March 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.