Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry Florio

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. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Florio

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are substantive articles which mention the subject in sufficient detail to pass the GNG in both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Roanoke Times. The Post-Gazette article stipulates that Florio was the ECHL's all-time career leader in games played, and the Virginian-Pilot article states that Florio was named in 1997 as Second Team all-time, which meet Criterion #4 of NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 21:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep after Ravenswing's edits. Long career and all-time ECHL leader in games played makes him very notable. bbx (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would have been a convinced and committed "delete" vote, but for the four footnotes added by Ravenswing: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article and the three articles from the Roanoke Times. Please note that the coverage is better than WP:ROUTINE in each of these four articles, but since three of them are from the same newspaper we really only have TWO independent, reliable sources to support the subject's notability per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. That's the absolute bare minimum by any standard, and subject to questioning as to the depth and significance of the coverage. In this case, the subject skates by -- barely. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely a good idea to keep, especially considering Ravenswing's revisions.Sadads (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing. Meets WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing. Definitely notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2014 (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.