Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Murray

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. The "crux" of this discussion is simple to identify: Does someone who is active but has not played satisfy the requirement of "competed" in WP:ATH? The guideline does not define the requirement in detail and it's obvious from this discussion that this lack of detail leads to uncertainty within the community in cases like this one. The delete !voters argue correctly that not actually playing in a game is strictly speaking not "competing" but "waiting to maybe compete". The keep !voters on the other hand have a valid point that competing does not require playing (much the same way that the second goal keeper will get a medal as well despite not playing usually) and that WP:ATH needs to be interpreted in a less strict way when it comes to sports where the player's participation can easily consist of only being ready to play (but training for it etc.). That said, there is no way to reconsile those two views of WP:ATH and neither argument is less policy-based than the other - they are simply different interpretations that are both of some validity. The question probably needs some wider discussion and a policy clarification may be needed but this AFD did not yield in a consensus for either interpretation. Regards So Why 13:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Murray

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable practice squad NFL player. Fails WP:ATHLETE and does not otherwise pass WP:GNG. Grsz¹¹ 01:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:ATH since he's been active per [1].--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Active how exactly? He hasn't competed in a game, which is what WP:ATHLETE requires. Grsz¹¹ 03:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the link provided it indicates he was active for a game but didn't get on the field however he was ready to go in when needed.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I see that he was active for four preseason games, which can hardly be considered legitimate competition, and he has never been on a regular active roster. If there is consensus that that fulfills WP:ATH then I suppose he is sufficiently notable, but there has to be some line somewhere. Not all practice squad players are notable, just like not all minor league players are notable in other leagues. (Happy Thanksgiving, by the way.) Grsz¹¹ 18:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Happy Thanksgiving to you as well. Now back to this, if you look at the recently deleted Terrance Stringer's NFL.com link you'll notice it says that, "This player does not have any statistics...". However, Murray's recent games says that (since he's hasn't played this season), but his career stats (while empty) are listed, which IMO makes him notable since he's been active for a regular season game.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Comment According to the Denver Broncos, Murray was on their active roster for the final three games of the 2008 season, but was inactive and did not compete. If he was not dressed to play, and did not play, than he cannot pass WP:ATHLETE, which stipulates "people who have competed". Grsz¹¹ 02:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Member of an NFL team's active during a regular season. Absolutely keep.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, just give it up, this article isn't ever going to be deleted.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails ATH, GNG. Attempt to gain consensus for practice squad players to be included under ATH failed. ^Bongo_matic 03:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NOT just a practice squad player. Don't vote if you don't know the situation.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Grsz¹¹ 03:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This guy was on the Denver Broncos active roster for a couple weeks and was activated for 4 games in 2008. He did not officially play in these games, but was active so passes WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATH says "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" are notable. Being active and on the roster is not "competing" by any normal definition of the word. To the extent it is, then there are lots of other activities--fetching water, bandaging ankles, calculating statistics--that could qualify as "competing". ^Bongo_matic 03:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He dressed for those four games and could have played in them had the coaches put him in. It's not like he is some random guy who the team signed to do busy work––he was going to play in those games had someone gotten injured. WP:ATH is just a guideline that you can follow but you do not have to, it is not a policy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the Broncos site and Chris, he was inactive and not dressed. Grsz¹¹ 03:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did dress for some. He was inactive and didn't dress for others.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the Broncos bio here: "2008: Murray spent the first 14 weeks of the year on Seattle’s practice squad before signing with Denver’s active roster on Dec. 9... Inactive for all three games with the Broncos." (emphasis added). Grsz¹¹ 03:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This whole WP:ATHLETE nonsense is ridiculous anyway. That one little guideline cannot possibly even come close to covering all kinds of different sports. There are so many level of leagues of pro football, different roster statuses, that WP:ATHLETE doesn't even begin to get into. I think it's quite obvious pro football needs its own guideline for notability to go by, and not WP:ATHLETE.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's likely true, as we tried back in April, but not relevant to this AfD. Grsz¹¹ 03:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be relevant to this AfD, but I completely agree with Chris. Are we able to write new guidelines? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Go to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and start a thread. ^Bongo_matic 04:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not believe being a member of the practice squad satisfies ATHLETE. Aditya Ex Machina 15:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was active on the roster.--Yankees10 15:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god this is retarded.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was retarded?--Yankees10 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No not you, you're one of the smart people here. It's retarded we have people voting no based on a notion that is false.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what "false notion" would that be? Grsz¹¹ 16:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That he's been just a practice squad player. Trust me, if he was I'd be !voting delete as well.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact is, he hasn't played (WP:ATH). Grsz¹¹ 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second time you linked to WP:ATH was enough. I deal with these article everyday, I'm pretty sure I understand it and know where you're getting your comments from.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And like I've said before, WP:ATHLETE does not cover it well enough.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another one of these? The standard is whether or not the player was on the 53-man roster. Murray satisfies that requirement. Pretty clear cut. Pats1 ^T/C 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be if that were the standard. However, it isn't. There are enough references to the applicable criterion on this page already, so I won't bother to add it again, but neither "on the 53-man roster" nor any proxy for it can be divined from "competed". ^Bongo_matic 08:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a Google News search for this athlete and found one reference (which I've added to the article) that was essentially a blog post on the NBC Sports website which makes a rather trivial mention of him. I really see no evidence that this article could pass the WP:GNG. It also fails WP:ATHLETE so I can't see how it satisfies the WP inclusion criteria. Jogurney (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That "blog post" happens to be from ProFootballTalk.com, straight from Mike Florio. He has become pretty reliable for me recently since his partnersip with NBC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does a news and rumor site like Profootballtalk satisfy WP:RS? If it does, and the coverage was more than trivial (which I certainly doubt), we'd have one source towards satisfying the general notability guideline. Are there others out there which are non-trivial? Jogurney (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site's Wikipedia article needs to be updated, by the way, as Florio has pretty much shed the "rumor mill" label his website has been called. It's about as much as a reliable source as an ESPN blog, because of the partnership with NBC in July. I don't think he has gotten something wrong in years. Also, if you go to http://nl.newsbank.com and you search: "'Pat Murray' nfl", you'd get a few more reliable sources. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first 20 results from newsbank were completely trivial mentions. I pulled the St. Joseph News-Press article about MIAA players in the NFL, and Murray's only mention was the following: "Truman State offensive lineman Pat Murray is with the Packers." That won't pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Jogurney (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE because he didn't play a game in the NFL. Sources is a major problem as well. Secret ^account 21:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.