Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip McRae


 * 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 Delete &mdash;  caknuck  °  is back from his wikisiesta  18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Philip McRae

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod, but subject fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:HOCKEY notability standards  Grsz  talk  00:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions.   —Djsasso (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I found a few sources 123; there's tons of stuff here that would seem to indicate notability. Naerii 01:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Naerii's references have me convinced that sports reporters regard him as noteworthy. There is quite a lot of analysis of him. He's young and at the start of his career, and is at least partly noteworthy because he has a famous dad, but he's noteworthy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see how his father should have any effect on his notability. He should be notable for his actions, not someone else's.  Black  ngold29   13:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You are correct, his father doesn't, there is a specific standard on this that notability is not inhereted. -Djsasso (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete While there are definitely things that make him noteworthy right now, ie the draft just occurred so sports reporters have to write about something and players who are children of former players are always written about when the draft comes up, this does not make him notable as notability is not inherented. He will most likely eventually play professionally and when he does his article can be recreated. The disputer of the prod used the reason that he won 3 state championships, however championships at that level are hardly indicative of individual notability or we would have thousands of highschool players from all sports on wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not professional, yet: therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. No other valid assertion of notability. ccwaters (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Coverage in many reliable sources isn't a valid assertion of notability? Naerii 15:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not when all these articles are pretty much there because of one event. So its a case of WP:BLP1E at the moment. Eventually I am sure he will be notable for other reasons but at the moment he only has articles because the draft just happened a week or so ago. So he is notable for that one event. -Djsasso (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E.  Black  ngold29   20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:BIO explicitly states that coverage by reliable sources must be non-trivial. A note along the lines of "The Blues drafted the son of Basil McRae in the 2nd round" isn't one.  I agree that the odds a second rounder will play professionally are very good, and if he does, an article will be appropriate then.    RGTraynor  02:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Once he plays professionally or wins a major junior award (read MVP of the OHL or Memorial Cup, or something along those lines), the article can be re-created.  Patken4 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The individual in question does not meet notability, regardless of his father. – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (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.