Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Anae


 * 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) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert Anae

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:NGRIDIRON after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed with reason "Currently the offensive coordinator of a top 25 team", which does not imply notability as shown above. GauchoDude (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Pretty clearly passes GNG Thats just the first two pages of a google search. Did you even bother doing research with this one?--Yankees10 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Offensive coordinator at a Division I university. Significant coverage in multiple mainstream media outlets, as referenced by Yankees10, goes far beyond routine coverage and is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable Division I FBS offensive coordinator. In my world, coordinators and assistant coaches, whether they work in an FBS program or a Division III program get no special consideration: in the absence of a major award or prior playing career that satisfies WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON, they must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  Per Yankee10's links above and my own cursory review of Google search results, the subject clearly satisfies the GNG standard.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:14, 27 September 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.