Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Murphy (baseball fan)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 speedy delete. —« ANIMUM » 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Murphy (baseball fan)

Matt Murphy (baseball fan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable person. Catching a baseball does not make someone notable. Borgardetalk 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Other articles exist of baseball fans who have been somewhat frequently mentioned in the media. --Roehl Sybing 15:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. Story already covered in the Barry Bonds article.--Sethacus 15:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough to have articles discussing him on ESPN.com, BBC News, ABC News, etc. Bound to make further news when he decides what to do with the ball. -- Amazins490 (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Delete, seeing the arguments for deletion, I'm inclined to agree. -- Amazins490 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sethacus and nom. Barry Bonds already has a way-too-detailed section on his home run record chase as it is. Clarityfiend 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless it can be proven that the man is famous for more than just one thing. From what I can tell, he isn't, nor is he likely to be famous for more than the catch for a long while. Sidatio 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Barry Bonds Delete - all the important information is already in that article, so there's no need to try to merge. A standalone article on this person can never become more than a stub, as there's nothing notable to say about him besides this one event. Iain99 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Barry Bonds per above. Not notable except for catching a record setting baseball. Dblevins2 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per Dblevins2 and Iain99. Smokizzy (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No offense, but what's the point of a redirect? We already have a disambiguation page for notable Matt Murphys. Is someone really going to search for "Matt Murphy (baseball fan)"? Sidatio 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point - I was obviously not reading the title properly. The sentence in the disambig page can be directed to Barry Bonds or removed depending on one's view of how likely it is that anyone will go searching for him after next week - my feeling is that it's pretty unlikely Iain99 18:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment: For what it's worth, there's two votes on the Discussion page - a Keep vote (rationale: WP:INTERESTING) from a Fidelity IP address and a Redirect vote from Poemisaglock. I put a notice on the Discussion page to vote on this page. Sidatio 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very lucky, and soon to be very rich, but not notable. --Bongwarrior 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Barry_Bonds#Chasing_the_all-time_Major_League_home_run_record.Terry Carroll 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete/merge - per notability --Tom 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This person is now highly notable in the history of baseball. --EfferAKS 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why the hell would you delete this? what is the problem? you should be able to put up a wiki article on yourself if you want, let alone a historic baseball fan.. whoever motioned to delete this is an idiot.. and if you go STRICTLY by the rules, 20% of wikipedia articles would be deleted.. besides this dont violate the rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.65.127 (talk)
Comment: what you happen to believe should exist in wikipedia, and what actually is supposed to exist in wikipedia, do not coincide. you should not be able to put up a wiki article on yourself if want, and chances are it'd be deleted in short order if you did; you are not a reliable source for reporting upon yourself. On the other hand, I absolutely agree - going strictly by the rules, 20% of wikipedia articles SHOULD be deleted. hey, let's call it 35% and make wikipedia 100% better. Anastrophe 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete part about Bonds being greatest baseball player ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.69.189 (talk)
  • Delete and Redirect to Barry Bonds, per the above arguments, and per failure to satisfy WP:BIO. 15 minutes of fame does not make a lucky person encyclopedic. Otherwise everyone who won $400,000 in a lottery would be entitled to an article (they are not). Edison 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to the Bonds article. Seriously, this is a little sad. †Ðanieltiger45† Talk to me 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Honestly, what the #### is the purpose for this article??? Sure I'm happy for the guy, but seriously, he is only known for this one event only, and still isn't notable. Keep it to the Barry Bonds. Bongwarrior said it himself, "rich, but not notable". To the guy who attacked the nominator, your reasoning deserves no merit, if you could back the "20% of articles would be deleted" theory, then I will give you some credit. My apologies if I sound like an #######, but I had to say it sometime. James Luftan contribs 21:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-08t22:02z
May not matter, but this article is being vandalized constantly. James Luftan contribs 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "flash-in-the-pan ≠ notability" arguments above. Mention his name in the Bonds article…don't even need a redirect, since a search for him by name would then find the Bonds page. James, I'd go even further: even if 90% of the articles on WP are deletable, that doesn't mean that this one here is not deletable. Or even if the one here is deletable, having others that are also deletable not get deleted at this instant doesn't mean this one here should also not get deleted at this instant. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DMacks 22:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mention him in the disamb. page as the guy who caught Barry Bond's homerunFrank Anchor 23:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero notability. The ball itself is more notable than mr. 'i'm the guy who happened to be where the notable ball happened to land'. Anastrophe 23:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lucky fellow. The information on the news sites is more than enough. Bali Talk 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to Barry Bonds and possibly the current MLB season, the San Francisco Giants and/or Three Com Park. Even if he caught the ball of the 756th Bonds HR, doesn't deserve the individual article, and so should other similar pages about people who caught historical baseballs (including Steve Bartman).--JForget 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. Titanium Dragon 00:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless Mr. Murphy accomplishes something notable in his life, an article about him is not necessary. Catbox 9 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Catching a baseball does not make someone notable. Catching a baseball worth $500,000 might. Still, it's hard to see voting to keep, since Murphy is, essentially, a footnote in the Bonds story. Does anyone remember who caught any of the baseballs hit by Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Sadaharu Oh, Barry Bonds (back in 2001?) or Alex Rodriguez? I think Mr. Murphy will probably not be too devestated if his Wikipedia article is deleted. Mandsford 01:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable person and no sufficient information to justify a stand alone article. Tomj 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP1E#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_eventsubliminalis 02:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No historic notability, unlike Bartman Corpx 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are articles for Jeffery Maier and Steve Bartman who both just "caught balls".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kapla2004 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 9 August 2007.
  • Delete: Zero notability. Other people with articles just because they caught balls should also be deleted. Tilefish 07:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could be way off, but I don't think there are any articles for people who have just caught a ball, with the exception of Bartman, which is a lot different. It was a foul ball, not a homer, and I don't remember if he even actually caught the thing. He also possibly affected the outcome of the series, huge media coverage, etc. No comparison really. --Bongwarrior 08:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename article: There shouldn't be no merging this article w/Barry Bonds article. This man has a sepearte life from Bonds. It wouldn't make sense. There should be, however, an article about the 756th homer and the background to it. It's interesting to know this guy planned this game 3 weeks in advanced, and the fact that he wasn't a Giant fan.
  • Delete as an obvious WP:COATRACK article. There is nothing notable about this person. He caught a baseball. Big deal. Burntsauce 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this trivia. Merge into Bonds article if needed. David D. (Talk) 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Barry Bonds, and only a small part at that. Realkyhick 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlike Steve Bartman he is not the subject of thousands of fans wrath, and numerous ESPN, Sports Illustrated, et. all. articles.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... so he caught the ball. And? Cursory association with a notable event doesn't automatically equate to notability meeting WP:BIO for all involved. To compare to Steve Bartman is apples and oranges. --Kinu t/c 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- if Tom House can have a page, why not this guy? Cinatyte 21:55, 8-9-07 (UTC)
  • Merge & Delete Murphy (and any milestone ball-catcher) is a minor footnote who should be mentioned in the article about the hitter, and also it an article about the eventual ball owner, but that’s it. No individual article deserved or required. Note that this differs from the likes of Steve Bartman who actually affected the outcome of an important game.--Fizbin 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep One event can be very notable. Something that is notable is a person, place, or thing that has achived monumental status because of one event or several events. In my opinion why would ESPN put this man on their TV Program if they didn't think that he was notable. To be mentioned on National TV and in newspapers all around the country for catching Barry Bonds 756 hr is an honor and is very notable.--2bad4u2day
Comment: That's the key word there - mentioned. Notability is not temporary. Sidatio 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Realize that this is a record that will always be remembered. One day you may think to yourself: I wonder who caught that baseball? With a ball worth that much people will always remember that homerun and the fan who caught it. Also think about what this man had to do to get this ball. He had to fight off 30 fans and came away with a bloody face. I at least think this man deserves to be on wikipedia.--2bad4u2day
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Murphy_(baseball_fan)&oldid=1144840876"