Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Imray


 * 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   no consensus. Strong opinion that subject meets WP:GNG with sources provided with equally strong opinion that provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE and so subject does not meet WP:GNG. v/r - TP 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Phil Imray

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Footballer who has yet to make an appearance at a level deemed to confer notability by Wikipedia standards (per WP:NFOOTBALL) has only played semi-professional club, no senior international call-up, only general mentions in sports journalism per WP:ROUTINE Club Oranje T 09:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
 * Delete - per nom. The subject fails WP:GNG as all coverage is routine, and fails WP:NSPORT, as he has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The topic appears to pass WP:GNG per the availability of reliable sources. See WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary". The sources clearly establish topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fails NFOOTY, that's true, but the guy easily meets GNG. There are articles in major newspapers that are solely about Imray – that is not "routine" by any stretch of the imagination. See The Scotsman: "Trialist Imray dreaming of a shot at SPL with Hibs", "Mixu will not offer Hibs deal to 'mystery' man Imray"; The Dominion Post: "Wellington keeper gloving chance at Hibs"; New Zealand Press Association/The New Zealand Herald: "Miramar keeper secures Chatham win"/"Soccer: Miramar win Chatham Cup". All significant coverage in major newspapers (and news agencies). Jenks24 (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of articles in the sports section does not define notability - every kid that trials with a big club gets that sort of coverage; it sells copy.The Chatham Cup coverage you link is exactly the type of routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage... that doesn't signify notability. At the end of the day, this is a footballer who has yet to actually achieve anything notable. WP is an encyclopaedia, not a summary of every article printed in the sports pages.-- Club Oranje T 07:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What other section of the newspaper would you expect a sports player to get coverage in? Unless they are David Beckham, that's where all sports players get covered. Or are you saying that more than newspaper articles are required? Either way, it's a flawed argument. You do realise that the section of WP:N that you linked to is for events? I fully agree that Imray is not a significant event. In my opinion, what's meant by routine sports coverage is "Imray made a good save" in match report – there were quite a few of those articles, but I don't believe they prove notability, so I didn't include them in my keep !vote. However, when the article is primarily about the player, that's significant coverage in my book. Finally, if he hasn't achieved anything of note, then why have multiple independent reliable sources covered his career? Jenks24 (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree his career is a non-event, but thousands of kids get a few sports page articles by journos hoping they are uncovering the next Messi. Thousands of these guys get their WP articles deleted every year because they have not made a meaningful contribution to the annals of history. Same as thousands of polititians who never got elected and thousands of musicians who never made it big get deleted every year.-- Club Oranje T 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, thousands of kids don't get the coverage that Imray has. He is simply unfortunate in that he is from New Zealand – although the league he plays in has professional players, it is not "fully professional", yet the national team is strong enough (they did make the last World Cup) that he is not simply given a game because he has a vague understanding of the rules, which is apparently enough for some players from countries where football is next to non-existant. He has far more coverage than players in the fourth tier of English football and some of those really obscure European leagues – articles that will never be more than one-line stubs. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that it's well-known that NFOOTY is a flawed guideline and it would really be great if the WP:FOOTY editors who comment on all these AfDs came in with an open mind about whether players who haven't played in a fully professional league can still be notable, rather than shooting down any and every reference provided as "routine". Yes, most players who haven't played in a FPL are non-notable, but that does not mean they all are. Sorry to go off on a bit of a rant there. Jenks24 (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG, coverage is way beyond routine and passing mentions. Added to article:
 * "Trialist Imray dreaming of a shot at SPL with Hibs"
 * "Mixu will not offer Hibs deal to 'mystery' man Imray"
 * "Miramar keeper secures Chatham win"
 * "Soccer: Miramar win Chatham Cup".

Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - For this discussion, here's a fifth source that was already in the article, to complement the four I noted above: "Wellington keeper gloving chance at Hibs." from stuff.co.nz. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 articles about the same thing...his job interview at Hibs, and 2 match reports. This is trivial non-notable tabloid sports journalism coverage. -- Club Oranje T 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it "non-notable tabloid sports journalism"? The newspapers in question are The New Zealand Herald (broadsheet, readership >500,000), The Dominion Post (broadsheet, circulation 100,000) and The Scotsman (compact, circulation 40,000). Jenks24 (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - How so? Several reliable sources seem to the contrary. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep He exists, he is known for something, there are references, maybe this artical could be expanded? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and others prove he is clearly notable. The WP:GNG has been met.   D r e a m Focus  22:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG, references are WP:ROUTINE sports coverage and fail WP:NTEMP. There are thousands of articles on non-League footballers who fail GNG by a long shot, this is no different. Also fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played a fully-professional or international level yet. --Jimbo[online] 11:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your reference to WP:ROUTINE, I'll say this. At the very top of that guideline it says "This guideline is intended to explicate the primary notability guideline with regards to current and past real events, as well as breaking news." But even if we ignore that and apply it to a biographical article: "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article" – this clearly does not apply to bios because I could refer you to thousands of AfDs where the consensus has been that the subject meets the GNG and the sources are all sports articles (indeed this would be the norm for any notable athlete); "sports scores ... should be considered routine" – the articles referenced in this AfD are not simply sports scores, they are in-depth articles about Imray; "Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article" – that's what's happening here, we are summarising Imray's career, not writing an article for every match. Jenks24 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even having 3 articles about his job interview, it is still WP:ONEEVENT and not a particularly notable one. Regarding your earlier comment regarding articles being in "broadsheet" papers, note that tabloid journalism does not refer to the size of the paper it is printed on, only to the journalistic nature of the article. Having references based on sports articles is not the issue, it is the nature of the article, and these articles - essentially the same piece in three different papers, are pretty run-of-mill. My 8 year old kid has had an article in the herald also.-- Club Oranje T 10:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that WP:ONEEVENT applies here. As you say, he received coverage for his "job interview", but he also received coverage other things, such as the "Miramar keeper [Phil Imray] secures Chatham win" article. I do understand that tabloid journalism does not only apply to tabloid newspapers, but unsurprisingly, tabloid journalism does occur mostly in tabloid newspapers. In the case of the articles I have mentioned above, I do not believe they are tabloid-y in nature, they appear to be written by serious and competent sports journalists. Perhaps other editors will comment on whether they believe the articles to be tabloid-y and run-of-the-mill? In any case, this has certainly been an interesting AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG in my opinion. Edinburgh   Wanderer  20:19, 16 October 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.