Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Murphy (3rd nomination)
firstly, disappointed that such a recent debate has been brought so quickly to the forum for re-debate, not just once but thrice: surely a month would be a good gap between debates over a few days? However, I think the debate here rests on what is notability. Looking at  and the references used in the current version, I think he doesn't presently make the required criteria - close, but not quite.  asks for both significant secondary sources, and significant and notable contribution - if the criteria were defined in Murphy's case as "Kansas" than yes, he would pass . But it doesn't, and I read the required level of sources as national or at least outside of state, as opposed to just/mainly state. I also think the current version is wholly over written and has too much coverage of (in three years times) wholly insignificant details - the property piece being a great example: tends to suggest addition of details to make sure the article is kept, over the creation of an encyclopaedic entry. Rgds
— User:Trident13, 10:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BIO (Wikipedia:Notability)