Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Davis (coach)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. — Scientizzle 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Davis (coach)

Dr. Davis (coach) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Come on, we don't even know this guy's name? Corvus cornixtalk 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as unsourced, uniformative listing. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, sources have been added. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep in the hope that more information comes to light. There's a whole template of Hokies coaches, so I trust that the author can find a source if we twist his arm a little. Lack of a first name is not a criterion for deletion and is actually a fairly common problem. I think the listing is "informative": it gives his record for the one season which he served as coach. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment sources have been added to the article. The infobox is supposed to provide reference links but isn't for some reason. References for the coaches records. As for the first name of this particular coach, this is as much information as is available. You'll find that sports history from the turn of the century often didn't record first names, that's just the way records were kept then. This one is a bit of an oddity as the first and middle initials of the head coach were generally in the record books but not for Davis for some reason. If anyone has any more information they are encouraged to update this article.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being the head coach of a major U.S. college football program is sufficient evidence of notability. This is not something that's easily sourced online, but we should avoid bias against older subjects.--Kubigula (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2007 (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.