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. I fully expect to be taken to DRV for this, but here goes. The problem is WP:NTEMP - "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". Since this individual clearly doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, what are we to do if he never passes it? Is such an individual still notable because they received some coverage in their formative years? The answer, I'm afraid, has to be no. When (as seems likely) they do hit ATH, then of course the article should be recreated. Black Kite 00:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kassel[edit]

Matt Kassel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Matt Kassel is not notable. He is not a professional footballer and has yet to attain enough of a reputation or importance to be published on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interzil (talkcontribs) 2009/11/21 07:51:40

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually, based on previous college soccer players' AfDs, that is a usual amount, or even less than usual; anyways, it's certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG, as they're just run of the mill sports news, which fail WP:NTEMP. GiantSnowman 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article from the Washington Post is hardly "run of the mill sports news". Wikipedia is not paper so individuals that receive significant coverage in reliable sources pass the inclusion policy on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you commenting on the sources provided by Nfitz (talk · contribs)? All three of the sources linked by Nfitz provide significant coverage about the subject. Cunard (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2009 (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.