Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Schipper

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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 05:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Schipper

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

unreferenced. No evidence of notablity Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly notable. Passes WP:NCOLLATH, prong 2, inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. Also one of the winningest college football coaches in history with 287 career wins and an .808 winning percentage. See List of college football coaches with 200 wins and List of college football coaches with a .750 winning percentage. Cbl62 (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a no-brainer. The statistics mentioned above are only relevant if they generate significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Statistics are not the equivalent of notability. That said, the subject coach was a member of the College Football Hall of Fame, which is clearly contemplated by the criteria of the specific notability guideline for college athletes and coaches per WP:NCOLLATH. Furthermore, the subject also arguably satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage as described, e.g, CBS News. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly notable, significantly exceeds requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. The lack of sources cited when the article was nominated is an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62 & Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Passes WP:GNG + WP:NCOLLATH. JTtheOG (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to keep the article now its got some references.Rathfelder (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2015 (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.