Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Howell


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nick Howell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Howell is an assistant college football coach. This is not enough to grant notabilioty. My search for coverage did not show up anything more substantial than the employer bios we have here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Razr   Nation  11:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete He is just a participating in college football and even there just as an assistant coach. He misses WP:NGRIDIRON very clearly. There are some passing mentions of him in a number of college football orientated news pages when they talk about his team(s) and its matches but nothing which resembles significant in-depth coverage of him as person. He is pretty much a run-of-the-mill college coach. While he works a for a notable team, he himself is not notable and fails WP:GNG. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Defensive coordinator of a Division I FBS program and a Broyles Award finalist with significant coverage in multiple mainstream media sources passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage includes the following: (1) Howell the quiet 'master' of Virginia's defense, The Daily Progress, 9/30/16, (2) Howell still making big difference for Cougars away from the spotlight, Daily Herald, 8/27/15, (3) BYU football's Nick Howell not backing down from defensive challenge, Daily Herald, 12/22/14, (4) Secondary coach Nick Howell has come a long way in a short time, The Salt Lake Tribune, 9/8/12, (5) BYU's Howell endures growing pains in first year as defensive play-caller, Deseret News, 12/15/04, (6) Fightin' words: Howell's comments ring true for BYU's defense, Standard-Examiner, 12/19/14, (7) "BYU's defense a 'work in progress,' Howell says", 10/14/14, The Salt Lake Tribune, (8) Defense struggling, but Bronco happy with Howell, The Salt Lake Tribune, 10/7/14, and (9) BYU's Howell a nominee for Broyles Award, The Salt Lake Tribune, 11/27/13. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is true that one can find mentions of this person in local media, but I don't think those satisfy WP GNG, which asks for significant, in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable established outlets as whole. Almost all of those articles are in the sports sections in small local media outlets with circulations of about 20-30k pieces. None of those actually do significant in-depth coverage of Howell as person. It is trivial sports reporting about routine actions of the team he works for and his activities with them. Just look at the very first article, it is basically a soapbox which quotes a bunch of person with opinions about him, no actual reporting or coverage. The other articles are pretty similar. Having been nominated for an award is nice, but does not automatically mean notability. His nomination gave him some mentions in higher-league newspapers, but nothing goes beyond "Nick Howell has been nominated for a Broyles Award". Again, nothing which can be called "in-depth coverage".
 * It is undoubtedly true that this person has some local prominence, but all of that comes with association with the sports teams. All the coverage is just trivial sports reporting in small local media outlets and none of those article does some actual signficiant in-depth coverage coverage about him which goes beyond trivial reporting. Dead Mary (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree to disagree. The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News are major metropolitan dailies, two of the most prominent regional newspapers in the Rocky Mountain states. And the coverage I've cited is not routine (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage) but rather consists of articles focusing on Howell. BTW, the Broyles Award is the highest honor an assistant coach can receive; there are literally thousands of college assistant coaches and Howell was a finalist for his profession's highest award.  This one is an easy and clear keep IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thats definitely true for those two newspapers, but those 2 articles are not what I would understand of in-depth coverage. It is just a mere collection of quotes from various people and Howell himself. 70% of both articles start or end all their their sentences with "Howell said", "Mendenhall said", "said Austin Heder", "PoVey said", "Heder said", "Howell said" and so on. For me thats really just fluff and not substantial. Sure, the number of articles is impressive and some of them are long, but the actual content in them lacking. I understand your points but I am still unconvinced per my reasoning above. But you don't have to convince me anyway, only the closing admin. :P Dead Mary (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per the sources listed by Cbl62. Also, the fact that he is "just participating in college football" does not have any bearing on the discussion, in my opinion. College football is not exactly insignificant. Lepricavark (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep sources found by Cbl62 show a clear pass on WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2016 (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.