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.
Comment: Instead of (implicitly) arguing that this is not a well-researched AfD submission, you could have rescued the article with this truck load of links. Are you still going to do that? --Pgallert (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I wish I had the time to improve every college football article. I spent hours last night researching this and other AfDs. I have also spent many hours in the past two weeks rescuing college football articles of living people that are completely unsourced. The immediate goal here was to determine whether this article should or should not be deleted. What I will do for now is to add the list of article citations to the article talk page in hopes that an interested Alabama Crimson Tide fine will pick up the mantle. Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cbl62's research is very compelling. I would like to see it added to the article, but I don't want to do it. Our discussion here should be "is the subject notable" not "is the article complete" --Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Subject is clearly notable after another great research effort by Cbl62, so I'll withdraw this nomination. Cheers,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:57, 30 April 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.