Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Murphy (American football, born 1998)


 * 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 draftify. Discarding a couple of policy-deficient contributions, the overwhelming sentiment is that the article should not be in articlespace currently. Daniel (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Kyle Murphy (American football, born 1998)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Undrafted, and never appeared in game. He was as in the practice squad, inactive on active roster, and on injured reserve. Mvqr (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, though the article certainly needs cleanup, that is not a reason to delete. And being undrafted and not having played professionally do not matter as long as the player meets GNG—which—it appears he does per the following: Dialed-in for greatness: Former AHS and URI lineman Murphy hopes to get NFL draft call from The Sun Chronicle; Former Rhode Island lineman Kyle Murphy gives NFL Combine his best shot from The Telegram; Did the New York Giants land an undrafted stud in OL Kyle Murphy? from Empire Sports Media; Rhode Islands best pancakes are made by URI OT Kyle Murphy from NFLDraftDiamonds.com (reliable?); Rams Kyle Murphy Gives His All On and Off the Field from YurView.com (reliable?); and New York Giants Training Camp Preview - OL Kyle Murphy from Sports Illustrated. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also found Injured Murphy's season with Giants' offensive line over before it began from The Sun Chronicle; Rams offensive lineman Kyle Murphy hopes to prove doubters wrong from The Providence Journal; URI’s Kyle Murphy ready for NFL Draft excitement from WPRI.com; and URI combine prospects draw inspiration from Patriots from Patriots.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is routine preseason coverage any UDFA gets. WP:NGRIDIRON has the criteria of one regular season game, as the revolving door of UDFA and practice squads is just temporary and routine stuff.-- Mvqr (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "This is routine preseason coverage any UDFA gets." I disagree. Routine coverage applies to events and not people, besides articles like "John Smith signs with the Eagles". What I have presented is beyond routine in my opinion, and I believe he meets GNG. The articles from The Providence Journal, The Sun Chronicle, and The Telegram are significant enough IMO, convincing me of a notability pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there any non-local reliable sources? Because pretty much every borderline NFL prospect goes through the "preparing for draft/'hopes to hear name called'"-"signs with team"-"involved in X transaction" cycle of coverage from their respective local media. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the coverage has to be non-local. I see nothing in the general notability guideline that excludes local coverage, and therefore believe that he meets the criteria. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the "presumed" part of the guidelines are to evaluate sourcing critically, including looking at where the coverage is coming from how far-reaching the coverage goes and determining if such coverage is commonplace or not. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify The Sports Illustrated article is a team-specific blog within SI.com and appears to be part of a series in which each preseason roster member is analyzed, so not super notability-lending, and Empire Sports Media, NFLDraftDiamonds, & yurview do not appear to be reliable. The rest appear to be the incredibly standard coverage that every UDFA receives ("local player signs with team"). Keeping the article in the draft space is probably a good alternative to deleting given the subject is currently on the roster (albeit on IR) and could make his debut at some point, at which point it can simply be moved back into the main space. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article could use some work, but it appears that there are enough sources here to meet GNG. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 02:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify per GPL93. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 15:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * keep ugh I personally do not like keeping articles that need such work. The text is good I suppose, but th reason to keep is the subject is techinically passing WP:GNG with feature article coverage.  Someone could argue that those feature articles are "transactional" in nature so common to pro football and they might be right and I would be wrong--and I would (almost happily) accept that.  Maybe the subject just has a great press agent... but overall I would prefer that an enthusiastic editor take the article to draft or otherwise quickly beef it up with editing advances so deletion is no longer a question.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. As I looked this over, I flipped between a "weak delete" (no notable accomplishments are presented and the article is in poor condition) and a "weak keep" (a surprising amount of coverage given the accomplishments) and ended up a "meh". In the end, I don't think deletion leaves Wikipedia a lesser place. Cbl62 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I expanded and tried to cleanup the article and found that he was named All-American by Associated Press, meaning he meets WP:NCOLLATH . BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Claims of All-America status are often inaccurate. I checked the actual sources for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 AP All-America teams and he was not included on the first, second, or third teams. See 2017, 2018, and 2019. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Was he on the Little All-America team or something similar? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but lower division AA picks don't get presumption of notability under NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I went through the Little All-America archive (here) and didn't find him there either. Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there an All-America team for Division I FCS? That's the only other thing that he could be in. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably so, but I wasn't able to find it. Cbl62 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an AP All-America team for every NCAA level, including FCS, as well as for the NAIA. However, from previous AfDs I've taken part in the general consensus has been that WP:NCOLLATH is only passed if the player is a consensus first team All-American at the FBS level. GPL93 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or draftify. I found GPL93's overview of the sourcing persuasive and would agree that the standard local coverage hyping transactions shouldn't be considered for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The articles I listed don't really seem to be "hyping transactions". BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per excellent referencing by User:BeanieFan11. The idea that whatever fails the professional standard should be deleted is incorrect. Often these articles still meet the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The referencing is hyper-local and WP:ROUTINE, which does need to be considered because Notability (sports) mentions routine coverage multiple times. Murphy has basically no reliable referencing outside Rhode Island or outside transactions/the pre-draft process. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * GPL93, I see five mentions of the word "routine" on that page, none of which do I see exclude this type of coverage. The first says "Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage." Don't see sources covering Murphy being excluded there. The second says "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." Still don't see exclusion there. The next two are in the section about high school players/coaches (this is about a professional player), and the final is talking about individual games. So I see no reason why the coverage Murphy has received should not be considered when evaluating for notability, and therefore he meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to draft; I get the sense he will be notable soon, but isn't yet. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is TOOSOON. I have shown extensive regional coverage (which still counts towards GNG) that is beyond ROUTINE, and so IMO he easily meets the general notability guideline. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2021 (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.