Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Hasselberg

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hasselberg[edit]

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

Deprodded with the reason that any professional coach is notable. But if deprodder were to check WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA he would see that the SPHL is not one of the listed leagues. And any league not listed follows the following "Those leagues not otherwise listed are considered to confer no presumptive notability to players, coaches, officials or executives, and articles about the same must explicitly demonstrate notability under the provisions of WP:GNG, WP:BIO or other valid notability criteria." As such he fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG as the references listed are routine and primary. DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. All sources I found fail GNG per WP:ROUTINE and his position does not presume notability per NHOCKEY, so I prodded the page. Creator deprodded without making any notability-worthy improvements. Yosemiter (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NHOCKEY and not finding much coverage. He does seem to get significant coverage in the Battlefords News-Optimist, most significantly this as far as I can tell, but significant coverage in a single source doesn't satisfy GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all above reasons. Deadman137 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2016 (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.