Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Casteel


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Casteel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable college athlete. Does not meet criteria for Notability_(sports) or WP:ATHLETE. — raeky ( talk 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete non notable amateur sportsman, fails WP:Athlete. Parslad (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable per Notability_(sports). Casteel is a well-known assistant coach, as seen  and .  In my opinion these links (amongst others) qualify as national media attention. TheMile (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Two passing mentions in an article hardly qualifies as non-trivial media coverage. He would of had to bee the focus of multiple independent reliable sources. — raeky ( talk 04:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree, but that's a matter of opinion, of course. Here's an award he won from another major service .  TheMile (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think an "award" from Rivals.com is notable enough for his inclusion here either, not by the standards of the notability policies. — raeky ( talk 11:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rivals has become a huge site (#623 overall website, #114 in the US on Alexa). It's notable enough.  As an "award", sure, it's specious.  It's nonetheless an article primarily about Casteel from a major media outlet.  TheMile (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading that article, which seems MOSTLY about the improvement the team has had in that season and some quotes about it's success from Casteel, it's clear that article isn't about him. It's not a featured article about him. It doesn't cover HIM in any depth. If thats the best source available for him I seriously don't see how he will pass the criteria for WP:BIO... — raeky ( talk 13:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you delete an article if the only available reference states in passing that the subject is the leader of some country? What is being covered is much more important than the amount of detail it is covered in. If you think this shouldn't exist, you should argue why assistent coach is not a notable position or why the references as a whole (plus potential additional sources) don't support notability (in which case the non-trivial bit will be more important) - Mgm|(talk) 13:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But thats the very definition of trivial coverage, passing references. We have notability guidelines in place so we don't end up having pages about everyone and their mothers. The two provided references I don't see how they can be anything but trivial coverage. Your examples are irrelevant because a leader of a country would have more then a couple passing references to back that up. What is being covered is just as important as how and where it's being covered. You wouldn't accept typical tabloid coverage of a celebrity as a reliable source nor should you create a wikipedia article about every person who has ever been mentioned in any reliable source. Unless theres more substantial coverage of this person in reliable sources I can't see how he meets the quoted guidelines. — raeky ( talk 19:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep Not a lot of coverage. Buth worth including. Perhaps a merge would be okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the guidelines trivial coverage does not mean we should keep it. Where would you propose a merger too? — raeky ( talk 10:36, 30 March 2009 (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.