Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Pavlick

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. (nomination withdrawn, though i consider most of Cbl sources WP:ROUTINE) former-admin close Secret ^account 00:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Pavlick

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

Again Alex says "Bad faith PROD". It would be nice if he backed that up by showing us how this individual is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head coach of major college sports team. He's also listed over 440 times in Google Books (not news), which is nothing to sneeze at. Alex (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have a substantial amount of non-trivial coverage so as to pass WP:GNG. In addition to the book references noted above, Hall of Fame sportswriter Red Smith wrote an in depth two-column feature story on Pavlick in 1968 which can be viewed here. See also the following non-trivial articles on Pavlick: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Alex -- Please consider integrating some of these sources (especially the Red Smith feature) into the article. Cbl62 (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per research by Cb162. Spanneraol (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per sourcing, WP:SNOW, and to clear out the backlog of current deletion nominations. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2011 (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.