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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Reap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Google search has ascertained the lack of notability of this person. TYelliot (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not on the grounds of lack of ghits, but on the grounds of no references other than a statistics list, and being a college coach. To me at least, this isn't a notable position. Figures of 9-13-4? Is that Won-Lost-Drew? Not particularly notable either if that's the case. Then again, I can never understand the American obsession with sports statistics. I would imagine anyone wanting to know about him would know somewhere with more info than this - and everyone else couldn't care less. Peridon (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A head football coach at a major college football team indicates that the subject is notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I expanded it some and added sources (whereas it had none before). He was a head coach in the collegiate ranks for a school that played top competition of the 1910s. At the time, this was the highest level for the sport. Strikehold (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With Strikehold's additions, the article has sufficient references to demonstrate notability in spite of the nominator's Google search. Furthermore, Peridon's comment is basically a Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT argument, implying he doesn't care for sports statistics. The availability of information elsewhere is a reason to keep an article, not delete it. —Ute in DC (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEEEP KEEEPP. I'd delete User:Peridon a million times before I deleted Thomas Reap. Anyone who ever coached a a college football team is notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I keep forgetting that the sports people at American colleges and universities are thinly disguised professionals and not just young people enjoying a change from academic lessons..... Peridon (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT Vodello (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response perhaps yes, perhaps no. In this discussion, that doesn't matter. What matters is an answer to the simple question: "Is the subject notable?" Yes, in the US college sports--especially college football--is a big deal. There is definite widespread coverage. There is definite interest and support. College football attendance can get as high as 100,000 for a single game in some stadiums. These are all indicators of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and with the recent expansion can stand on its own. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons above. When will users realize that English Wikipedia is shared by several countries/regions and that there are a number of "local" notability standards out there? Lord knows there are enough articles about obscure cricketers and third-tier Eastenders actors out there. Please don't add AfD tags to articles without understanding the notability standards for the subject area. Rikster2 (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not so sure about this one. During the time he coached, the NCAA had not yet gone to divisions, but if you look at the schools Villanova played, only Army and Navy have consistently been top level teams. [Take a look at the actual schedules]. So maybe he's notable, but I wouldn't call it a clear case. And it is simply not true that "[a]nyone who ever coached a college football team is notable." I'll concede that it's true of the current top level (D-I FBS), but not true of all times and all levels. cmadler (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not entirely accurate. In addition to Army and Navy, which were two of the major powerhouses throughout the early 20th century, Lafayette, Lehigh, and Fordham were all top level squads at the time of Reap's tenure (in fact, Lafayette was named national champions the year after in 1921). Moreover, since this was before any formation of divisions within the NCAA/IAAUS, I believe the only way to be consistent is to consider all teams that played at that level equally. All were in contention for national championship and individual recognition. Additionally, because Villanova was until 1980 a Division I-A/University Division team (highest level) and is currently a top-tier Division I FCS (e.g. being last year's champions), it is necessary to consider all of their head coaches notable in order to give a complete history of the program. Strikehold (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As Strikehold explains, Villanova football and all of its head coaches are unquestionably notable. That this one article was cherry picked for deletion strikes me as peculiar and seems to be an act that was made without much thought. If Reap is not notable, then wouldn't other Villanova coaches like Martin Caine follow suit? The reality is we that have slews of articles for head coaches at NCAA Division II, III, and NAIA programs. WikiProject College football has deemed that any head coach of an NCAA or NAIA football program is notable, irrespective of division, record, or length of tenure. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Coaches Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cynical thought: They would, wouldn't they? 11:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What's even more cynical is what I think about the above post or the earlier snide comment about "thinly disguised professionals", which is ironic because at lower division schools, the athletes really are "young people enjoying a change from academic lessons". Jweiss11 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The claim of notability in the article is supported by appropriate sources. Alansohn (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I struck out part of my previous comment. Looking into it more, Strikehold is correct that Villanova was facing top-level competition during this time. cmadler (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as previously discussed at WP:CFBCOACH notability essay. Clear-cut case, well documented, notability is asserted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established by reliable sources. We are not going down this slippery slope today, fella. Vodello (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (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.