Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Becker (athletic director)


 * 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) czar ♔  05:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ernest Becker (athletic director)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person is not notable for anything tennis related and seems non-notable to me. Perhaps all athletic directors and philosophy professors are notable as I have no idea the qualifications from other wiki projects. There is an LA Times article link listed but it was because he was dead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Becker is notable for significant association with founding and developing of California State University, Fullerton, originally Orange State.  One way is that he was highly involved in the spectacularly successful 1962 intercollegiate elephant race that put the university on the map, nationwide.  There are numerous Orange County Register and/or Los Angeles Times articles significantly about him;  i have added some and there are now 3 and 1 of each type;  there are more available.  One unfortunate way that he was repeatedly in the news was for tragedy of his son being killed in the campus library in a mass murder incident.  Becker, as a salient university official and as personally directly affected, in numerous stories was repeatedly quoted for his views, e.g. on the convicted shooter's alleged insanity, at repeated hearings for parole.  The article could use more development, but this is a solid keep situation. -- do  ncr  am  17:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep -- obituaries in L.A. Times (major national newspaper) and Orange County Register (major regional paper) are sufficient for GNG, regardless of WP:PROF. Sourced w/ enough other minor references to be sufficient. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per past comments at wikipedia notability I would say that is untrue. Obituaries do not impart automatic notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @ that conversation was 6 years ago. there are other conversations that have come to a different WP:CONSENSUS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - we tend to keep articles on non WP:BLP articles with obituraies in major sources as they meet WP:GNG. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources more than meet GNG. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 12:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This person - an athletic director - should not be judged per WP:ACADEMIC, but rather per WP:GNG. And it is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE that obits in major regional papers make you notable; I have only heard that argument advanced for the New York Times, and even for the NYT it did not achieve consensus. I'll evaluate GNG and come back with a recommendation for this subject, but both of these rationales, for delete (PROF) and keep (what are we calling it now, WP:OBITUARY?), are invalid. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep He has plenty of coverage (thank you, Doncram), not just his obituaries. He was the founding dean of his university and played a major role in its founding and development, which is significantly reported in major publications. (I added another one.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per doncram. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as sourcing seems to show notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per multiple editors, easily meets WP:GNG; nom doesn't really cite a specific reason why article does not deserve inclusion. ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:24, 24 May 2014 (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.