Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Scalercio

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. Secret ^account 19:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Scalercio

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

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 "notable college coach", yet career shows otherwise. GauchoDude (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep college football head coaches are normally kept as they almost always are found to generate enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. See essay at WP:CFBCOACH.--Paul McDonald (talk)
Comment. I have not had a chance to evaluate yet, and it's not much, but a preliminary search at newslibrary.com does turn up some significant coverage of Sclaercio, including (1) "Allen's Road to Success Began With Scalercio", The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA) - January 31, 1996, (2) "At SSU, Where's the Beef? Scalercio Looking for Big Linemen", The Press Democrat, April 18, 1995. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As Paul McDonald pointed out Mr.Scalercio meets the guidelines as specified under WP:CFBCOACH. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoessss: Please note that WP:CFBCOACH is not a Wikipedia notability guideline; it is an essay written by one or more regular CFB editors and reflects their opinion of how college coaches should be treated for notability purposes. The notability guidelines which apply to college football coaches are the specific guideline of WP:NCOLLATH and the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. In absence of a major college award or record, coaches generally require significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources for inclusion. The vast majority of Division I FBS head coaches will meet this standard, but the percentage falls with the size and prominence of the program. Division II and III head coaches are by no means automatic "passes" for inclusion. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Standing consensus at AfD, supported by the college football project, is that all collegiate head football coaches are presumed notable. I agree. There are sufficient sources out there for a GNG pass in every case between hiring, game-related coverage, and firing stories... Carrite (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Head's Up - @Carrite: The standing consensus at WP:CFB and WP:CBB is that all Division I head coaches in football and men's basketball are presumed to be notable. That presumption does not apply to head coaches in Division II, Division III, or NAIA tier programs, nor does it apply to Division I coaches in sports other than football and men's basketball. There is a vocal minority, however, who have advocated the position that all college football head coaches should be presumed notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:59, 10 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.