Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Foley Sr.


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tymon. r   Do you have any questions?  13:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ed Foley Sr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable college athlete. Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. He did receive coverage in The Boston Globe, but I've not yet found enough to satisfy WP:GNG. See, e.g., here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have a newspapers.com account and looked there. I was unimpressed. It's WP:ROUTINE coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the coverage is routine, it is not sufficient to pass the GNG bar. A google search did turn up this, but it's from the BC student newspaper, so it is not regarded as "independent". Waiting to see what others may find. Cbl62 (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * keep those two feature articles look anything but routine to me...--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think we have very different definitions of "routine" and "significant coverage". Two short, game-action based articles from the same publication don't clear GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I use the definition in WP:GNG which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:ROUTINE does not apply because it is about "events" and not "people"-- what did you have in mind?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep received significant coverage in McKee, Don (April 16, 1989). "King of Diamonds, Fields and Courts". The Philadelphia Inquirer. in addition to coverage during his playing career - Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's very hard to assess what you've added if it's all offline. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are links to the article cited above by Hirolovesswords: part 1/part 2.


 * delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for any sport and coverage is typical sports reporting for his career. As for the Philadelphia Inquirer article it's a local coverage story (Cherry Hill is a Philly suburb) that focuses on the family's three boys who were all good athletes. Can't inherit notability from his kids. The coverage is typical of local coverage that you'd expect for a division I quarterback and game reporting.Sandals1 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm persuaded that there is sufficient depth of coverage in the Boston Globe and Philadelphia Inquirer article (major metropolitan newspapers) to surpass the GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV that continued long after his playing years: Boston Herald 24 Nov 1993, by Jonas Kalish, Ed Foley's son shines, " Foley finished his college career with 1,916 passing yards - 15th on BC's all-time list - and nine touchdown passes. He was the Eagles' No.1 quarterback for most of 1964 and 1965 while BC went a combined 11-7.  The Foleys attend nearly all of BC's games, and have watched their son..." E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62, Hirolovesswords, and E.M.Gregory. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.