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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Scott (football coach)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability for collegiate sports, no major coverage or record. RAN1 (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the subject is an assistant coach for the Clemson NCAA D-I team, but hasn't received major news coverage and is only mentioned as part of routine coverage of the team. --RAN1 (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Evidently I didn't check as well as I thought I did, thanks to Cbl62 for finding the relevant info. --RAN1 (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been rated as one of the top 10 college recruiters in the country by ESPN, he's a co-offensive coordinator for one of the elite programs, and there is significant coverage in mainstream media outlets which is focused on Scott and not simply routine game coverage of the Clemson football team. This is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Coverage includes (1) "Scott Has Unique Perspective", Spartanburg Herald-Journal, 2002; (2) "Jeff Scott might be logical choice to become next Clemson offensive coordinator", Greenville Online, Dec. 2014; (3) "Clemson’s Jeff Scott knew at a young age that he wanted to coach", The State, Dec. 2014; (4) "Scott, Elliott Named Co-Offensive Coordinators At Clemson", WSPA-TV, Dec. 2014; (5) "Clemson’s Jeff Scott ranked among top recruiters", Greenville Online; and (6) Ranking the Recruiters", ESPN.com, 2014 (ranking Scott as the No. 10 recruiter in the country); (7) "Tigers' Jeff Scott ranked as nation's No. 7 recruiter by ESPN", OrangeandWhite.com, June 2014 (not independent in and of itself but confirming an earlier, higher ESPN rating). Cbl62 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBl62's sources. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep normally assistant coaches are not considered notable, but this one appears to be an exception and passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is the offensive coordinator (head defensive coach) of a high-profile Division I FBS college football program. While the significant coverage in reliable sources is not overwhelming, it is there, including feature articles in the major regional newspapers of South Carolina. There are also recent articles on ESPN.com and elsewhere rating the subject as one of the top recruiters in the nation; while this is interesting and noteworthy in the context of the larger article, this recruiting coverage is not in-depth and would not, in my opinion, qualify as "significant" in the meaning of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG or enough to carry the day in the absence of the two or three feature articles mentioned above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2014 (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.