Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Kassel


 * 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   delete. There are two issues here. As pointed out by the nom, there aren't any reliable third-party sources of notability, and the second issue is WP:ATHLETE. The claims to be an "All-American" do not intrinsically pass either tenet of this (especially if he was only named as a second-teamer, which it appears that he was) and linked with the lack of other sourcing means that notability cannot be asserted at this time. Black Kite 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Josh Kassel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I have nothing but respect for Mr. Kassel, but I can't see that he meets our notability guideline at WP:ATHLETE. He had two good seasons for the Black Knights; what the article doesn't tell you is that his senior season was much less successful. At this point, he appears to be out of hockey and is presumably fulfilling his military commitment as an officer in the U.S. Army. While laudable, that's not particularly notable, and I don't think we need this article unless someone can find some reliable third-party sources to bolster alternate claims of notability. Powers T 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Powers T 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Powers T 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. Powers T 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. I would probably have just prod'd this like we do when junior player articles get created. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something, and I wanted to make sure all was above-board as I'd just had a college-hockey player article kept a few weeks ago. =)  Powers T 16:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable amateur athlete. Atlantic Hockey All-Star isn't on the same lines as a major junior team, and even those players would fail.  Grsz 11  15:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Time out here ... this guy was an All-American? That isn't a small conference all-star slot.  That's a preeminent NCAA honor and generally deemed notable.  What he did in his senior season or what he's doing now is irrelevant ... there are any number of hockey players who weren't any great shakes their final seasons or subsequently.   Ravenswing  15:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know a heck of alot about the All-American system. But according to the sources I could find he was only named a second team all american for the east, which according to the All-American article, means he wasn't a full All-American. -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that college hockey names nationwide All-Americans; they're all divided into West and East and have been for many years. Could you point out where in the All-American article it says otherwise or that they aren't "real" All-Americans?  I've got the article up right now, and I don't see a single reference to college hockey, which somehow doesn't surprise me.   Ravenswing  06:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it specifically mentioned ice hockey. But it does say "A "unanimous selection" is a player who is listed as a first team All-American by all recognized lists. A "consensus All-American" is a player who is listed as a first team All-American by at least half of the recognized lists." Which implies in order to be called an All-American you would have to be on the first team. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it implies that at all. "unanimous" and "consensus" modify "All-American" to indicate particular degrees, but the absence of them does not negate the "All-American" descriptor.  Powers T 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heck yes. Someone named to an All-American team is an All-American.  Period.   Ravenswing  09:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an argument to which I might be amenable, and one reason why I did an AfD instead of a prod. Here's the 2007-08 All-Americans: http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,15688/2008DivisionIMensHockeyAllAmericansNamed.html  Djsasso is correct that Kassel was the goaltender on the East Second Team, which means he was considered the second-best goalie among those in the CHA, Atlantic Hockey, ECAC Hockey, and Hockey East (excluding Air Force and Bemidji).  Is that notable?  He was not a Hobey Baker finalist (top 10) that year, and I think only the winner of that award is usually presumed notable.  Perhaps this is more of a borderline case than I thought.  Powers T 15:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'd agree that it's borderline, but I doubt it would set a huge precedent to keep him. But the fact is, is that he was an All-American, and in the American College System that's essentially being named First-Team, Second-Team, etc. All-Star on the season, for the entire NCAA.  The fact that he was the first hockey player from West Point to achieve that status in 30 years is pretty commendable, and notable in my opinion.  I would say that it is a 'light keep', if there is such a thing! :)  Captain Courageous (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete In my eyes a second team selection and no subsequent play at the top elite level in the sport doesnt satisfy my interpretation of wp:athelete. But i respect that others opinions on this differ and their reasining makes this very difficult to clarify as keep/or delete.Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment To weigh in my two cents, I've always taken the All-American part, and other amateur All-Star teams, to mean first team selection only. I can't remember the article, but I remember someone who was a second team All-Star in a junior hockey league and the article wasn't kept.  I have no real strong opinion either way, however.  Patken4 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2010 (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.