Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. C. Riley

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W. C. Riley[edit]

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

Delete: does not appear to meet threshold for notability under SPORTS or ATHLETE.

Also, delete W.C. Riley (redirect) Quis separabit? 02:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we almost always find that any head college football coach who has coached for a few seasons achieves notability through WP:GNG. You can see reasoning at WP:CFBCOACH. It's not surprising that there are not very many online news sources easy to find for a head football coach in the time period of 1930-1934. For reference, review WP:CFBWEST.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald : "we almost always find that any head college football coach who has coached for a few seasons achieves notability through WP:GNG" -- really? Will check out WP:CFBCOACH and WP:CFBWEST as per your suggestion but am not withdrawing nomination [yet, anyway]. Need to hear from more editors. Quis separabit? 11:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect you to withdraw your nomination, the discussion is always valuable and makes Wikipedia better. Let it run its course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has since been expanded. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional sources now added to the article establish that the subject passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul McDonald, Cbl62 and Ejgreen77. Rikster2 (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2017 (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.