Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Murphy (basketball)


 * 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   Result was keep. The WP:NSPORTS guidelines for high school athlete notability are more relevant than WP:NBASKETBALL. Most crucially "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." This burden appears to have been met by the "keep" !voters. Rlendog (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Alex Murphy (basketball)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

High school student, fails notability criteria for Basketball player inclusion -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Disagree with the nominator's reasoning, per this. I feel that the player's various Top 15 rankings by national publications passes notability. Striker force Talk  Review me! 18:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with Alex Murphy basketball under the current title. Sellyme Talk 06:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I nominated Alex Murphy basketball for speedy deletion as a duplicated (identical content, created by same editor) of Alex Murphy (basketball). -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: High school athletes are tough cases. There is a burgeoning media business covering them and major outlets like ESPN have been building their HS recruiting coverage over the last few years.  After looking at Google News entries, I would say Murphy probably is notable at this point.  He's a top recruit, and is the son of a former NBA player.  Both of these (especially coupled by his commitment to a high profile program) tell me he is probably borderline notable.  I wouldn't argue with a delete decision either, though.  Rikster2 (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. The sources that are available are mostly about one event, his commitment to attend Duke, and WP:RECENTISM seems applicable. A star high school player attending a college is WP:ROTM and not notable. —Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd guesstimate that 99.99% of high school athletes aren't notable.  But this is one of the exceptions. He's rated as the number 15 recruit in the country by ESPN, number 8 by scout.com and number 11 by rivals.com.  He was pursued by the top college programs including Kentucky, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina and Florida, and he has committed to Duke.  He has been the subject of extensive national media coverage and doesn't fit into the usual box for high school athletes.  Multiple feature stories have been published about Murphy in major media outlets like ESPN.com here, Fox Sports here, The Boston Globe here, USA Today here and The Providence Journal here and here.  These articles are not merely "routine" announcements of a player signing with a college team.  They provide in-depth coverage of Murphy.  Cbl62 (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentThe sources you list are all reliable, but they deal with one event published February 7—his committment to a college—and is a case of WP:RECENTISM. —Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually not all the coverage is about his signing. But in any event, recentism (even if applicable) is not a basis for deleting.  As stated in the article, it "is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well." Cbl62 (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS would be more succinct for lack of "enduring notability." —Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The key phrase is substantial and prolonged coverage, which this person has not received.  Swarm   X 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article from WPRI-TV (titled "Alex Murphy deep into NCAA recruiting") was published on 27 April 2010. This article from The Providence Journal (titled "Recruiting war is on for South Kingstown’s Alex Murphy") was published on July 18, 2010. This article from the Boston Globe (titled "Murphy picks Duke") was published on 8 February 2011. The news articles, spanning nine months, are "substantial and prolonged coverage". Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's certainly not "substantial" and it does not go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage.  Swarm   X 03:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is "substantial" in my opinion. That multiple articles feature Alex Murphy as their main subject attests to his notability. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the coverage we see here tips this subject over the line as far as notability is concerned. It's a narrow thing, but enough to Keep. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:26, 20 April 2011 (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.