Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Shannon

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. Excellent rescue work by GB fan §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Shannon

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

Local High School football coach with no notable national coverage whatsoever. A cursory glance through Google, Yahoo and other search engines barely yield any results for this Bob Shannon, most results back refer to the New York radio personality. Basically it looks more or less a self promotional page. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the recent improvements to the page and the various sources listed, I believe it fulfills the WP:GNG and WP:BLP.Aytea (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has sources from CNN, ESPN, USA Today, Associated Press, Chicago Sun Timesa and others. This is all significant coverage from reliable sources and they are all independent of Bob Shannon. When I searched for Bob Shannon I found many references about him. He meets the basic biography guideline and the general notability guideline. GB fan 15:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GB fan. Amply passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page reads like an advertisement/self-promotion (e.g. USA Today "title") for a very minor staff member of high schools, not even colleges. Googling his name suggests he is either a radio host or a boxer--in short, other people who are more notable than him come up in google search results instead. The page fails to be encyclopedic as there is no mention of the sports science techniques he uses, nor is there anything about his background/education. It reads like a CV/resume for a minor school staffer trying to get a book deal or a job...It is also a stub and highly unlikely to ever become a full-fledged GA article, as there is simply not enough information out there for such a minor staffer. The page might be misleading when it mentions President Clinton, who was on the campaign trail, and thus talking to anyone and praising any and all potential voters, even minor school staffers.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How does USA Today "title" make the article read like an advertisement/self-promotion? Can you point to specific sentences or areas that make it look like this article is being used to promote him? If you can we can fix that, this is not a reason to delete the whole article. If you google 'Bob Shannon' other people show up earlier in the list. This Bob Shannon shows up for me on the second page and again on the fourth page of results. The location within the results have nothing to do with how notable someone is. If you just add the word 'football' to the search there are lots of hits on the first page. Not having all the information someone would want about a person in the article does not make them non-notable. That is not a reason to delete an article. Will this article ever become a GA, probably not. Right now a little over 0.6% of the articles are GA or above. Will 70% of the articles on Wikipedia ever become GAs, probably not. Does that mean that we should delete all those articles because they will never become GA? Finally, what is misleading about the statements made in regards to the 53 Faces of Hope and Bill Clinton? The small paragraph reports what the sources say. Have you read the sources to see if it is misleading? Have you read any of the sources used in the article? GB fan 17:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont think there is any strong point in deleting it.AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have a five year old template suggesting each of these "coach of the year" coaches are likely notable. Nomination is simply incorrect in claiming he is a "Local High School football coach with no notable national coverage whatsoever. Credit to GB fan for improving article.

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GB fan 02:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GB fan 18:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GB fan 18:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is ample coverage from reliable third parties. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the exception that proves the rule: 99.9% of high school sports coaches are not notable. The subject of this article, however, appears to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:50, 28 October 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.