Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucien Abraham

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. Sandstein 19:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Abraham[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was redirected to the college, which was reverted with the assertion "notability can be established", which then promptly was not. Searches turned up a single hit, which is already in the stub. In fact, that source is sort of like an anti-notability claim, and has a single line about this coach, "In 1935, under the direction of Lucien Abraham, local high school coach and commander of Batesville's National Guard unit, the Panthers returned to their losing ways." In fact, the season was so bad, the football program was dropped after the season. Fails WP:GNG and utterly fails WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a losing a record as a coach does not erode notability. Abraham later became a chief officer adjutant general of the Arkansas National Guard, as noted with additional source added to article prior to nomination here. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And therefore meets neither WP:NCOLLATH nor WP:NSOLDIER (the title is "general", but his rank was "colonel"). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was later promoted to general. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One can also fail to meet WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NSOLDIER, but still pass WP:GNG. In other words, passing WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NSOLDIER can be sufficient to establish notability, but failing them does not necessarily disqualify the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. But he doesn't even come close to passing GNG, so his only shot was under the specialty guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's rare that a head football coach at a 4-year college would not be considered notable, and college athletic directors also tend to be considered notable. I'm not shocked that a head football coach from 1935 does not dominate in a "google news search" but it is nice to see several historical references in the sources. A poor win/loss record in sports can be just as notable is a great one, as seen with Ronald Beard. Sure, it's a stub article but stubs are okay and this one actually has enough information to pass WP:GNG--three of the sources point to that; two newspaper articles from the 1950's and a book from 2003. The "Find-A-Grave" website doesn't establish notability, but it does provide useful information to a stub article that has already passed the threshold.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Query This has also been bugging me in the nomination: the nominator states that the re-direct was reverted under the claim that notability could be established "which then promptly was not" -- but when I look at the history of the article, I see that within less than an hour of that revert, an editor added two more sources to further establish notability before the nominator brought it to AFD. I have no problem with good faith nominations for AFD (even those I disagree with) but I have to point out that the phrase "which then promptly was not" because I don't know how something can be promptly not be done -- what is the meaning of that phrase in the nomination?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER. And yes, that does apply to reservists as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am satisfied with the promotion to Major General which creates presume notability per SOLDIER. Coverage of the 30s-40s-50s-60s (particularly for figures significant on a state level) in digitized form on-line is at times more difficult than earlier periods. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he appears to meet the WP:SOLDIER requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having attained the rank of major general, appears to pass WP:SOLDIER. Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER. I found another image of him [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice find! I've added it to the article. It needs some editing, I admit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I would disagree with the sentiment that all college football head coaches are notable (especially for an NAIA school), I do agree that he meets WP:NSOLDIER. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2018 (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.