Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Keyes

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Keyes

[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)

Article does not appear to meet notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. ilamb94 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ilamb94 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick search did turn up some significant coverage from his two years as a UCLA starter and later as a coach, e.g., (1) "Miss and Hit for Keyes", Los Angeles Times, 9/18/05, (2) "Keyes Plays Way Back to First Unit", Los Angeles Times, 8/16/06, (3) "Former Birmingham, UCLA standout Keyes a daydream believer", Los Angeles Daily News, 1/31/09, (4) "Drawing from within: Campbell Hall football coach Dennis Keyes ...", Los Angeles Times, 8/15/17, pt 1 and pt 2, and (5) "L.A. football coach starts youth 7v7 league to combat lost skills from drop in tackle football", USA Today High School Sports, 2/16/18. Cbl62 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having had time now to review the coverage, I am persuaded that it is significant coverage sufficient to pass the bar of WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After a Google search turned up significant coverage, including post-pro ball articles, I added to the existing Wiki article. Feature newspaper stories of the subject include those written by USA Today and the Los Angeles Times about the subject's life after his football career. Subject easily passes WP:GNG, plus his football career includes awards and notable records, thus the subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like new research has uncovered enough to pass WP:GNG. Good research team!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the coverage satisfies WP:GNG - the LA Times articles from when he was a player are local blurbs from the team's beat writer and I would classify them as WP:ROUTINE, and while there's a feature article from the hometown paper it's about how he made the practice squad, the reserve team, for a NFL team. He fails WP:NCOLLATH (specifically #3) and WP:NGRIDIRON. The human interest story on his art is interesting but it's by the youth sports writer, and the quote about his 7v7 league isn't bad, but it's not really WP:SIGCOV of him. I'm not specifically !voting because I have a different view of what constitutes routine coverage than the users on the college football project (i.e., he was not a notable college football player and only received press in a football setting because someone was assigned to cover his team locally, and his post-football work would not have qualified him an article had he not played college football) and I've found some !voters who continually vote against WP:GNG consensus disruptive when sources exist, but I want to note my concern. SportingFlyer T·C 04:17, 25 November 2019 (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.