Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Miller

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 22:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Miller[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Only wo references, one to a table and one to a database, neither of which establish notability. I can't find any sources outside of press releases from the team or general lists. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Miller appears to meet the WP:GNG with sources such as [[1]] and [[2]]. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 is a puff piece, but it does (somewhat) help to establish notability. Source 2 is a quote, from him, which fails at providing WP:SIGCOV GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That first source is not a puff piece, there's no undue praise and it includes some criticism. It reads like a typical feature story and should easily count towards GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to disagree over what the actual story counts as- but what criticism? It hardly matters in an AFD discussion whether the piece is critical or not- but I've re-read the piece a few times and I'm having a hard time seeing anything that could be taken as critical. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone who played 39 games in the modern NFL is always going to be notable, there's plenty of coverage available, e.g. the ones above and a bunch more at Newspapers.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link any particular examples? I've looked through quite a few and I'm still having a hard time that aren't just trivial mentions mentioning that he played or didn't play in any particular game. I'd really appreciate it if you could share the ones you've found. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly notable.-- Yankees10 04:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Passes GNG with coverage like (1) a two-page feature story in a major metropolitan daily (part 1/part 2) as well as (2) the Dayton Daily News piece linked above by User:Let'srun. However, the article at the time of the nomination failed WP:SPORTBASIC: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Hopefully, this can be promptly remedied by someone by adding at least one piece of SIGCOV to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional SIGCOV (3) here, (4) here, (5) here, and (6) here. Cbl62 (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you to User:Alvaldi for adding SIGCOV sources to the article. That resolves the SPORTBASIC issue. Cbl62 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG comfortably with the above sources (I took the liberty and added many of them to the article). For most modern-ish day American athletes who reach that top-tier professional stage, they were notable college players before and Newspapers.com is usually a treasure trove for sources for those kind of players. Alvaldi (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2024 (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.