Deletion of Dennis Keyes

Comment: After a Google search turned up significant coverage, including post-pro ball articles, I added to the existing Wiki article. Feature newspaper stories of the subject include those written by ''USA Today'' and the ''Los Angeles Times'' about the subject's life after his football career. Subject easily passes , plus his football career includes awards and notable records, thus the subject passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NGRIDIRON)

Comment: looks like new research has uncovered enough to pass .  Good research team
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I don't think the coverage satisfies  - the LA Times articles from when he was a player are local blurbs from the team's beat writer and I would classify them as , and while there's a feature article from the hometown paper it's about how he made the practice squad, the reserve team, for a NFL team. He fails  (specifically #3) and . The human interest story on his art is interesting but it's by the youth sports writer, and the quote about his 7v7 league isn't bad, but it's not really  of him. I'm not specifically !voting because I have a different view of what constitutes routine coverage than the users on the college football project (i.e., he was not a notable college football player and only received press in a football setting because someone was assigned to cover his team locally, and his post-football work would not have qualified him an article had he not played college football) and I've found some !voters who continually vote against  consensus disruptive when sources exist, but I want to note my concern
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ROUTINE||WP:NCOLLATH||WP:NGRIDIRON||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)