Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of poorly performing college football coaches - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion
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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

List of poorly performing college football coaches

List of poorly performing college football coaches (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)

Composed entirely of SYN and POV ElKevbo (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep has great functionality as lists in Misplaced Pages do, including grouping article pages in one place for reference and navigation. Provides more detail than a category. Point of view and synthesis? Hardly--certainly losing 0-222 in a single game is a poor performance, and many experts state so. Losing 44 consecutive games without a win and holding the worst lifetime record in college football as a head coach would also qualify, as would having the most losses of any other coach. Could the "qualifications" be better stated and handled? Probably, and through collaboration that will happen. Some names will be added, others will drop off. Perhaps a better list name could be created as well. But the list itself should stay in one form or another.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete This list is a perfect example of WP:SYNTHESIS, with gratuitous WP:BLP violations thrown in. Anyone on the Internet can find a primary source saying that X (a football coach) had a bad week, then add X to this list. Even if a definition of "poorly performing" were provided, it would be total synthesis to list all coaches whose teams (for example) had a certain-sized losing streak (perhaps the ten best players are in hospital after a bus crash). Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the title is currently written, it is entirely subject on the part of Wikipedians as to who performed poorly. Paul states some obvious examples that everyone might agree on, however, what about Amos Alonzo Stagg or Charlie Weis? Did they perform poorly or just not meets the standards of whomever makes the decision of their employment? I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to name the article List of college football coaches fired for poor performance because it is a bit more objective with the ability of references to be found. Location (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Resonpse/Stagg - Amos Alonzo Stagg had more losses than any other coach, and more ties than any other coach. But here's my question: Can the list be salvaged, re-arranged, or improved to be kept?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Response/Fired coaches - I think that a list of coaches "fired" for poor performance would be vastly different because 1) such a list would be huge and 2) such a list would not cover coaches who resigned, retired, died, or whatever.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, this list is based on Misplaced Pages editors' subjective opinion, making it synthesis instead of an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 04:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete POV. Records can be put in a list of college football coaches article. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment the records can and are placed in the coach articles, but comparison to other coaches on a nationwide historical basis are not. Misplaced Pages does not have "drill-down" capabilities for data mining--we rely on lists.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment Unless there was a significant rivalry or other notable comparison between specific coaches (say, SEC coaches), there's no reason for "drilling down" subgroups. I believe WP:NOT makes it clear that Misplaced Pages is not a source of indiscriminate information. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete pure original research, candidate for WP:FREAKY. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it fits the definition of synthesis at all. Saying that losses equate to poor performance for a coach is not original research, it is a self-evident fact. However, the criteria for the list seems too open-ended and arbitrary. It could have a place perhaps if it were formatted differently, such as with sections for different criteria (longest losing streaks, longest scoring droughts, most career losses, etc.). Strikehold (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. Though I was the one to call attention to the synthesis issue with this article, I too feel that with less open-ended and arbitrary criteria, this could be salvaged. I've made separate sections as you suggested; how does it look now? Shreevatsa (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as a poorly-synthesized, indiscriminate trivia list. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Response "poorly-synthesized" is another way of simply saying "incomplete" which the list is. "Indiscriminate" is inaccurate because the information is not random but actually selected (see WP:DISCRIMINATE). "Trivia" does not qualify, because there are reliable sources to support the links to articles already widely considered notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Blaming it all on the head coach is WP:POV (even if it might be accurate). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Response if the editors "blame it on the head coach" then yes. But the editors of the list are not "blaming" the head coach, the list merely reports on the results of the coach--and many a sportswriter will be happy to assign the blame. So the "point of view" is of the sportswriters and sources cited, WP:POV applies to any editor or the article itself creating the point of view... the POV has already been created by the outside third party.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Original research (Synthesis) & POV . Tzu Zha Men (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely original research. "Poorly performing" is just a matter of who is talking. Really bad POV issue here... Undead Warrior (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as misguided and biased original research. When Amos Alonzo Stagg shows up as one of only seven coaches on a list of "poorly performing college football coaches", that seems like a signal that the criteria for inclusion are misguided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment He was head coach of more losing games than anyone else, and by a long shot. Also more tie games. Babe Ruth was a legendary home run hitter but also was a strikeout king.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Cy Young also holds the record for career losses, but I'd seriously Facepalm Facepalm any attempt to add him to a List of poorly performing baseball pitchers article. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I would also note that the American Football Coaches Association gives an Amos Alonzo Stagg Award, and they don't mean it as an insult. And that Stagg was one of the initial inductees of the College Football Hall of Fame. And that the NCAA Division III National Football Championship is named in Stagg's honor. And that Stagg won two national championships. And that at the time of his retirement, Stagg was college football's second-winningest coach ever (several other coaches have since surpassed him). <sarcasm>What a poorly performing coach!</sarcasm> --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Step one: Tarc, I quote from Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts: "Ensure that you have followed the directions at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes. Politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively; and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues whilst assuming good faith." I personally found your "facepalm" comment to be a threat and made me very uncomfortable. And followed up by Metropolitan90's sarcasm, I became even more uncomfortable. I would like to move forward on this discussion in good faith. without further threats or any comment that could be perceived as a threat. Is that all right with you and everyone else here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
            • No, actually, it isn't ok; thicken up your skin a bit, please. There is nothing threatening or even remotely uncivil about a "facepalm", which exists here as an actual template, i.e. pretty much implies that its usage is OK. I find your frequent comments here to be bordering on the silly, and I responded as I saw fit, noting a baseball analogy to show that the premise of this likely-soon-to-be-deleted article is a bit absurd. I would also note that the manner in which you have conducted your own commentary here...frequent, rapid-fire responses to just about everyone's post...is getting to be a bit off-putting. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
              • Discussion this is an "Articles for Deletion Discussion" which means that we... well.. "discuss" the issue. That means that one person states something, another responds, and so forth.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
                • I can assure you that nothing in my comments is meant as a threat to anybody. However, I would like to say that, in sports, one can often put together a list of great players or coaches by ranking those who have done the most of "good" things in the sport -- for example, the coaches with the most wins, or the baseball players with the most home runs. But it doesn't follow that one can put together a list of poor players or coaches by ranking those who have done the most of "bad" things in the sport -- for example, the coaches with the most losses, or the batters with the most strikeouts. The reason is that a person generally has to have a long career to set the record for those "bad" things, and if they have a long career, they were probably doing some other things well for much of that career. Most of the people who are utterly dire at playing or coaching a sport never even make it into the top rank of the sport to have their statistics compiled, or if they do, they don't stay very long and thus don't have the opportunity to rack up a lot of losses or strikeouts or other "bad" statistics. To put it another way, Kobe Bryant has missed over 10,000 field goal attempts in his NBA career. I've never missed a single field goal attempt in the NBA. But, nevertheless, Bryant is going to start for the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA final tonight, and I'm not, and there are many very good reasons for that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:SYN. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • PROPOSAL would you be interested in a comprehensive List of College Football Head Coaches which includes win-loss-tie records, schools, teams, and notable events? That would be a huge page (at last count, College Football Data Warehouse lists over 6,200 head coaches by name), but it could be made sortable by wins, losses, etc. Or, would anyone have an issue with List of College Football Coaches by Career Wins? What about List of Winless College Football Head Coaches? My point is that there is a lot of rich data here that we can include and if people can just see past my personal inability to come up with a title, we can have several great list pages come from this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:SYN applies here, and it's point of view what "poorly performing" means - no real inclusion criteria. Claritas § 19:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a blatant violation of WP:BLP. Besides the original research issues, there are no reliable sources describing these coaches as 'poorly performing'; an admin who speedy-deleted this as an attack page (CSD criterion G10) would be wholly justified in doing so. Robofish (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - this is clearly an attack on the people mentioned, since it disparages them. It is also subjective, in that the term "poorly performing" could depend on how you view the subject, thus making it and its contents an NPOV risk. Quite clearly a nasty piece of work and needs to be removed with the utmost haste. --BarkingFish | 02:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Response I'm pretty sure that Biographies of living persons does not apply to dead people. Maybe the two guys from Prairie view are still alive...? I don't think it's "nasty" at all, and certainly not an "attack" -- it's merely a reporting of which coaches had the poorest records.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Response to your response :) - At the moment, 3 of the people in that article are not listed (at least here) as being dead - Ronald Beard, Hensley Saepenter and George Williams, so their inclusion in this list does violate the concept of negative BLP, since it is disparaging for them to be listed in a negative light with no positive information. BarkingFish | 03:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Getting dizzy Okay, I'm ready to userfy this one and work on the title. Maybe somebody can swing by my userpage and tell me how referencing Sports Illustrated is "synthesis" - but everyone seems to be convinced that it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • It's synthesis because the Sports Illustrated reference simply points out that Prairie View University lost 80 consecutive games. It doesn't say anything about the coaches and whether they performed poorly or not. The rest of the references appear to simply be primary sources/stat pages used to back up an argument not made by any secondary source presented. --Onorem♠Dil 21:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • See Misplaced Pages:Userfication#What_cannot_be_userfied. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • ooops copied back.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. After some thought, I've realised my first impression was right, and this should be deleted as unsalvageable. This is a synthesis (and a terrible title) in several ways: (i) it is the teams that performed poorly, not the coaches. I don't know about American "college football", but blaming it on the coaches is not our call. The references only show that such-and-such a team had such-and-such results (not even "performed poorly"), they don't directly support blaming the coach (ii) The criteria for inclusion are entirely made up. This is awful. (iii) "Poorly performing" sounds too much like the present tense. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Misplaced Pages:NOT#NEWS Perhaps this has a place on Wikinews if it was lifted from Sports Illustrated. Group29 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
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.