Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Imray (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Phil Imray
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Phil Imray
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )



He has not played a fully professional league match at a club or at international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  03:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:
 * "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) 01:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 01:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Those references seem to be just ordinary run of the mill sporting articles, nothing special, therefore in my opinion he fails WP:GNG. The fact also remains he hasn't played a league game at professional level and has not made a international senior appearance.Simione001 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'll quote myself from the last AfD: "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) 06:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Player very clearly meets WP:GNG and a simple Google news archive search would have confirmed that. The user who nominated this has nominated several other New Zealand players recently, and I recommend that people check out those AfD's as well, as some of them appear just as questionable.  Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'd say he fails WP:BLP1E as all the "significant" coverage is actually WP:ROUTINE and about his trial with HIbs. GiantSnowman 17:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As can be seen by the sources provided, he has had significant coverage for more than just the Hibs move. If you check gnews, you can also see plenty of articles that mention him, which actually are routine coverage, but mean that BLP1E does not apply. Jenks24 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delelte - WP:ROUTINE press coverage about a potential move, nothing significant about the player to pass WP:GNG. Sources provide also fails WP:NTEMP. --Jimbo[online] 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does WP:ROUTINE mention potential moves? It lists sports scores and matches, things that are already scheduled to happen. Jenks24 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Transfer related stories are routine amongst footballers. --Jimbo[online] 23:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – BLP1E does not apply, but ROUTINE does. Jenks24, don't stick to the letter – reporting potential moves is routine sports journalism. – Kosm  1  fent  07:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the articles just said "and in other news, X is reportedly going to be transferred to Y". In-depth articles that discuss a player's history, attributes and so on are not routine. Jenks24 (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough bios in main papers to meet GNG. Mattlore (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, albeit weakly, as he passes WP:GNG, as Jenks24 points out. — sparklism  hey! 11:01, 25 July 2012 (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.