- 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. Tone 13:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian Eisner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I searched google and there were no references to him on the first page. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He was a Hall of Fame championship tennis coach at two universities. He led the Michigan Wolverines to 18 Big Ten Conference championships in 31 years as the head coach there. He has also been inducted to the University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor and the University of Toledo's Varsity "T" Hall of Fame -- the highest honors those institutions bestow on a coach or athlete. When you're talking about someone whose notability derives from the pre-Internet era, it's a flawed approach to simply do a google search and say "I searched google and there were no references to him on the first page." The article already has a number of sources establishing his notability (including a lengthy feature story about him published in Sports Illustrated here), and more can be found (though not as easy in the pre-Internet era). Cbl62 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per Cbl62. "There were no references to him on the first page" is not a valid argument for deletion. Clearly a notable coach. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Pretty weak nomination, to be honest. The first page of a google news archive search would have shown that Eisner passes the WP:GNG, e.g. with articles such as this. The SI article that Cbl points to also gets Eisner past the GNG by itself. The articles is also in pretty good shape and the sources in it prove notability, as well. Jenks24 (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Very weak nomination. No references on the first page of a Google search is a non-argument. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: properly well-sourced and passes WP:GNG, why delete? 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definite keep. Plenty of sources and clearly notable. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 01:16, 10 November 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.