Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve McNulty


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve McNulty

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional competition, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Big Dom  18:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – No indication of notability, either through his level of play or sources on him.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I did some Googling and came across this, this, this, this, this, this and best of all this. For me that's significant coverage in reliable sources, which means he meets WP:GNG. It's unusual for a non-professional player to meet notability guidelines, but this one seems to. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of non-league footballers get coverage in minor local newspapers. I'm not really seeing your point here. Big  Dom  06:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. But in very few cases does it come from four different newspaperrs, span five years and include a fairly strong mention in a BBC article. It's also worth noting that McNulty was named Blue Square North Player of the Year in 2008 (see this article) - a fairly significant achievement. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. He fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please elaborate on how he fails WP:GNG when seven reliable sources talk about him in detail? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG as noted above. As such whether he passes WP:ATHLETE or not is not relevant. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - being Conference North player of the year does not confer notability, which seems to be the only significant claim beyond WP:ATHLETE, which he fails. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What about significant coverage in seven reliable sources? Doesn't that confer notability per WP:GNG? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. "Routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article." From WP:SBST, part of the notability page. All of these sources are sports coverage and as such are not sufficient basis for this topic to have a stand-alone article. This would seem clear enough to me. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From the same page: "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." The phrase single event or topic is significant: as I read it, the line you quoted is only relevant if all the sources refer to the same event. These don't: they cover six different events and span five years. Then there's the interviews, which don't refer to any specific event at all! Alzarian16 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But the section you quote from states 'particularly' for individuals associated with one event; ie, this also applies in other cases. For me, this section precludes people who are notable on the basis of one event, and also as indivudals who happen to fill roles which generate lots of reporting but which are not inherently notable (a local councillor might be a very similar person who generates news coverage, but is not inherently notable). The word 'routine' (as in 'routine news coverage') suggests that coverage could be fairly common over a period of time. The interviews are local newspaper interviews with a player from the local team: a very routine occurrence. I could go through the Evening Mail website and find interviews with every player who has spent more than a couple of months with Barrow AFC over the last five years; this coverage is routine sports reporting and as such does not confer notability. The only exception to this is the Conference North player of the year award; but that in itself is not at a high enough level to confer notability--Pretty Green (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Would seem to pass WP:GNG due to coverage in multiple reliable sources even if he does not meet the guidelines of WP:ATHLETE. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Routine sports tabloid journalism only. Nothing truly notable, fails ATHLETE. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an almanac. Billions of low level footballers get similar coverage in local rags, but they are not part of the enduring annals of history. -- Club Oranje T 01:19, 2 June 2010 (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.