Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Colliflower


 * 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

George Colliflower

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear notable (WP:GNG). Also, unreferenced, and all I see are mentions in passing. Being a coach is not enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient sources to pass WP:Prof or even WP:Sport or WP:GNG. Totally un-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep I added several sources from newspapers.com so the article now does have sources. The availability of sources for a figure whose career occurred in the first couple of decades of the 20th century are always going to be a bit spotty, but looking at the sources, Colliflower seemed to get a good amount of press coverage as both a player and coach, and his family was a prominent sports family in Washington DC in the 1900s through about the twenties. We typically presume notability for major college basketball head coaches, because they generally do receive this type of press. I am confident more sources exist if we had access to his full contemporary media, but I think the pieces I added at least demonstrate meeting WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rikster2. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rikster2 Rlendog (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rikster2. Cbl62 (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Rikster2's work. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sources to meet GNG, per Rikster2. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 14:44, 27 June 2017 (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.