Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hill (American football)
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Bert Hill (American football)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bert Hill (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While accomplished, not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Commonness of the name makes it hard to search, but I did find some SIGCOV. E.g. this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have time for any in-depth searches now, but the first result when I took a brief look was this from the "USA Strength and Conditioning Coaches Hall of Fame" which appears to be sigcov. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Onel, thanks for giving advice for the article. While the article is not complete, my last edits were made to highlight the importance of the athletic training in the longterm perspective of the Detroit Lions. Due to its nature, research in this field is not trivial and my personal resources are at a low right now. Further SIGCOV can and should be integrated in the article in the future. Dopeious (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- comment generally assistant coaches aren't considered notable unless there is a good amount of coverage. There seems to be some here to at least consider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. In general, strength and conditioning coaches (and position coaches, coordinators excluded) don't get all that much media coverage by virtue of their job. He's been active for a while, so it's quite possible that he got local/regional coverage in newspapers about the teams. That being said, he is in the Strength and Conditioning Coaches Hall of Fame, so he might pass WP:ANYBIO#1 except that I'm not sure how relevant/organized/legitimate the organization actually is. I'll have to take a deeper look. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)]
- In terms of media coverage, I was able to find
- I'm not quite sure that this is SIGCOV, but if the Hall of Fame honor is from a legit org (The Tennessean seems to give it weight in an obit) and is reliable (it's written by a professional historian), then I'd think that there's just enough coverage to keep the page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- (weak) Keep. I had neglected to look at the sources presented by Cbl62 when commenting above. When taking those into consideration alongside the unique sources I listed (the one from DFP was a duplicate), I think there's WP:ANYBIO#1 owing to his hall of fame induction. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)]
- Weak Keep. Hill seems to be just notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- keep Inclusion in the US Strength and Conditioning Hall of Fame provides WP:GNG. I wouldn't use this as precedent to include "every" assistant coach, but it looks like there's good reason to include this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)]
- Keep - seems to have enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (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.