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 Snow keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 22:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nesbitt (American football)[edit]

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

An ex-college football player and later a coach. There are several brief one-line mentions about his resignation as coach, but nowhere near enough coverage to meet WP:GNG requirements. Sionk (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, I would recommend, that in the future you would discuss a possible nomination in the talk page of the article before putting this time limit on discussion here. Secondly, have you done your research here? Houston Chronicle and Washington Times sure seem like independent coverage. These are not "one-line mentions", but rather full articles about this person, so I discount your premise. Brian Reading (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I completely disagree. I don't know where you're seeing 'full articles'. There's a single short paragraph about Nesbitt in the Houston Chronicle and one line in the Washington Times saying "Houston offensive coordinator Mike Nesbitt has resigned after the Cougars’ 30-13 season-opening loss to Texas State." As I say, not enough to describe him as widely known. Sionk (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my comment below. There are plenty of valid sources. Brian Reading (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Brian Reading. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom mentions, the citations are nothing but one-liners of the routine-type coverage. There is no significant coverage of this person to satisfy the demands of GNG. Ravendrop 23:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral A lot of sources have been added, but the majority still seem to be local and/or routine coverage only. Not having an extensive enough knowledge of the demands of notability for the football project I can say that, in my mind, it is no longer a clear delete (as it was when I first voted) but nor is it a clear keep. I would be fine either way if this article is kept or deleted, and thus my new, neutral vote. Ravendrop 02:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I'm afraid I have to agree. Normally assistant coaches do not qualify for notability, junior college assistant coaches would be even less likely to. And I don't see any measure to change that stance at this time. The essay at WP:CFBCOACH may be helpful. Please note that the subject may achieve notability in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a former Division I FBS assistant coach, not strictly a junior college coach. I should also note that he is a former NFL player. Brian Reading (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, he never played a down in a regular season NFL game. Check Pro-Football-Reference.com. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, let's establish the Wikipedia policy outlines for discussing this subject. First, there is no specific notability guideline (SNG) that grants a presumption of notability to American college football coaches; neither WP:NSPORTS nor WP:NCOLLATH do so. WP:WikiProject College football, by consensus, supports a presumption of notability for all Division I college football head coaches, but not for assistant coaches. In the absence of an applicable SNG, a subject must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, which requires that a subject must receive substantial coverage in multiple, independent, published, reliable sources per WP:RS. That means team profiles, school newspapers, media guides, etc., while they may be reliable sources, are not independent sources. Furthermore, trivial or routine coverage should be discounted for purposes of determining notability per WP:ROUTINE. For those editors who believe that this article should be kept, it's now time to start linking to those reliable sources they believe demonstrate this subject's notability. The Washington Times article linked in the Wikipedia article is clearly trivial; the Houston Chronicle article while not trivial, is a very slender, single thread on which to hang the subject's notability. What else do you editors who support keeping this article have? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping I replaced the "Oppose" comments with the word "Keep" to more accurately reflect how WP:AFD functions. Note that it does not change the editor's position or argument in any way, it just makes it easier to flow.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sigh. Shouldn't this be the first step for anyone recommending deletion?

There are plenty more sources out there if one takes the effort to go look. Brian Reading (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, in fairness to those who previously voted "delete," the sources previously included in the article and prior to your search were far from adequate to support notability per GNG guidelines, and, as I am sure you know, the burden rests on those who support the "keep" position. Thank you for taking the time to do the search; with the sources added by you and Cbl, the article is vastly improved and its subject clearly notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get a bit of perspective on this please. Three of those sources are nothing more than brief mentions in relation to his resignation. The Houston Chronicle article gives a reasonable amount of information about Nesbitt. The Alberquerque Journal gives a small amount too. One CBS source is clearly detailed routine sports coverage about playing strategy (the other CBS source I can't open). Well done to Brian Reading for doing some digging, but let's not over-egg the omelette. This was a good faith nomination. Sionk (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is questioning that you were acting in good faith. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked at this and found it hard to believe that an offensive coordinator at a Division I FBS school (and at at a school in one of the country's biggest media markets) would not have enough press coverage to pass WP:GNG. So I did some searches and found dozens of stories about him. I've added many of them to the article. There are more out there. Looks like plenty IMO to satisfy WP:GNG. I'd ask those who previously voted "Delete" to give this a second look. Cbl62 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:GNG does the trick, Nesbitt appears to also satisfy prong 3 of WP:NCOLLATH: "Gained national media attention as an individual ..." Here, there are articles written about Nesbitt in such major national media outlets as ESPN, The Sporting News, here at Yahoo Sports, here at NBC Sports, and here at CBS Sports. Cbl62 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to disagree with some of the aforementioned delete !votes; I think that there are sufficient sources, specifically these: [1] [2] [3] [4] and probably [5] and [6] if I had a High Beam account. I'll stipulate that this is a borderline case and further stipulate that only WP:GNG applies, not WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NSPORTS, but I think it passes GNG. Go Phightins! 01:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear keep per additional substantive sources found by Cbl62 and Brianreading. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Modified my opinion with due to new info. I think this is another example of how a delete tag can improve an article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A classic case of AfD improving an article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changed position. Nice job!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With the vote count now snowballing at 8-0 in favor of keeping, would the nominator consider withdrawing the nom so this can be closed? Cbl62 (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I hadn't !voted keep already, I'd non-admin close it as keep. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above, there is a reasonable article in the Houston Chronicle and possible in-depth coverage in the Alberquerque Journal (subscription required). The remainder are the briefest of mentions or 'routine' sports coverage. You must admit, the three national media "articles written about" Nesbitt you identified are the briefest of mentions. The case, in my view, is still borderline, so I'll let the crowd decide. Sionk (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Albuquerque Journal articles don't appear to be subscription to me. You simply need to answer the marketing question that pops-up. It's equivalent to an advertisement in that you simply have to dismiss it to read the article. Also, I'll have to disagree that these are mostly routine coverage or trivial mentions. Have you checked out all 44 of the sources listed on the article now? Brian Reading (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2012 (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.