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. JGHowes talk 17:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a little information on him here. (Still not enough coverage, but might be a helpful start for anyone possibly looking for more.) Harrias(he/him) •talk 08:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - are we here again? Why not just delete every article I created? Not having heard of someone isn't a reason to delete an article. To be honest I'd rather see all minor counties' cricketers deleted if we're going to come here again. Every article I've ever written runs to exactly the same template, and none of them have been updated in the last eleven years. Delete them all. Bobo. 10:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of Shropshire County Cricket Club List A players, which would have to be created. Playing one solitary List A game does not make a cricketer notable, especially when that appearance was for a minor county and their contribution was so insignificant. Seemingly nothing spectacular about any of their other minor counties appearances either. As such, it seems highly unlikely that there is enough substantial coverage to be found to warrant a standalone article. Fails all guidelines except NCRIC/CRIN, which does not enjoy community support (per recent discussions at NSPORT and elsewhere). wjematherplease leave a message... 14:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bare assertions based solely on CRIN carry little weight. Successive discussions have demonstrated clear consensus that the cricket guideline is overly inclusive; as such, at AFD it must be demonstrated that subjects pass more stringent guidelines (e.g. GNG, SPORTBASIC, NBIO) if they are to be kept (as standalone articles). I would like to see evidence of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, which should be outside of just the local paper, but there just isn't any. wjematherplease leave a message... 23:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC in that there is seemingly no in-depth coverage available Spiderone 14:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Forgive the double comment - once again this is not alone in being the only article which needs to be discussed if so. Why and how do people randomly come across these articles after 11 years? Still makes me suspicious. If this article needs looking at then still do - presumably, given the size of the category - dozens of others. Anyone prepared to do the legwork in improving the other articles or checking them out? None of you would bat an eyelid if these articles had infoboxes. *tumbleweed* Bobo. 15:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatantly non-notable. Many other similar articles from a period of barely-regulated article creation need to be nominated here, no doubt, but for the moment this can easily go. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not "barely regulated". Just regulated differently. Y'know. NPOV, N, and all that. Bobo. 12:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Martin (cricketer) - which is the article about the New Zealand international cricketer who is clearly the primary target for an article with this title. The Shropshire and Cornwall Minor Counties player is a little more complex to deal with - but whatever we do, this article seems a really obvious redirect case to me.
For the British chap, this article is about all I can find about him just now, although I intend to look more around the subject. I will create an article along the lines of List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players for Shropshire over the next week I imagine - it will take a little time to get all the information in it, but it's not that difficult to create the basic list. This would seem to sit well with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Dass, although I don't think this case is quite as clear cut as that one was. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if there were any Shropshire Star articles concerning him - I have a friend who might be able to search for more through the SS archives but I'm not in a fit state to bother with that right now. Bobo. 12:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they were I would have, as ever, no objection to the article being recreated.
NoteList of Shropshire County Cricket Club List A players now exists - in a very simple form at present, but it's better than nothing. I'll get to expanding it per the Bedfordshire one asap. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played at List A level and played plenty of Minor Counties Championship matches for two teams. Passes WP:CRIN as far as I can tell. StickyWicket (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So does every other article which is coming to AfD. Doesn't take a child to work th... oh wait.... Bobo. 22:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played in domestics so I think the article satisfies WP:CRINCreativeNorth (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Relisted and no interest in the discussion for six whole days? I think this discussion has run its course...Defending the integrity of our project has gone from keenness to complete apathy. Once again, if the only difference between articles that go to AfD and articles that don't is a pretty little infobox and the word "references" instead of "external links", then consider doing that instead of sending to AfD... Bobo. 13:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would appear that some are still unaware (or choosing to ignore) that NSPORTS guidelines such as NCRIC only offer a (fairly low-bar) presumption of notability, while also making clear in SPORTBASIC that "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion..."; this obviously includes Cricinfo and/or CricketArchive profiles, which is all we have here. Arguments to keep this as a standalone article must go beyond bare assertions of meeting the SNG, and it seems extremely unlikely that the necessary substantial coverage exists in sources with a wider reach than the local paper. It could also be argued that, regardless of the classification of a match or competition, Minor Counties cricket is not the "highest international or domestic level" and so this cricketer actually fails NCRIC/CRIN. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumption" is a nonsense word used simply to flout basic inclusion criteria, that are so simple even a child could understand them. The word "presumption" is meaningless. If you want to try and alter the brightline criteria, as people have been begging for the last 16 years, but been unwilling to supply a solution we've been able to agree upon, you know where to suggest. Every sporting project has exactly the same inclusion criteria. Why is it only CRIN which is being questioned? Bobo. 15:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're prepared to go and look for further information to include about this, or any other, individual, go up to them and ask which hairdresser they go to and what their opinion is on Brexit... Job done. Any other information other than what is present in the article, or any other article, is superfluous. Bobo. 15:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sports/cricket guidelines are not "criteria for inclusion", they are essentially nothing more than predictors of the likelihood of meeting GNG – when challenged, GNG must be shown to be met. If it helps, there is an extensive discussion here regarding all SNGs. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're picking the tiniest of holes in the most inappropriate place. If you're willing to suggest new brightline inclusion criteria we can work to so that we can delete all these articles and start again, feel free. Too many people are willing to say "the bar is too low", but are unwilling to suggest how to fix it... As it happens, appearing in List A matches is sufficient for inclusion. We have already gone to great pains to point out what a "major competition" is... Bobo. 15:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it actually isn't sufficient. Successive AFDs have confirmed much more is needed than the odd appearance (just a few recent examples: Umar Draz, Adil Zarif, Tasawar Abbas, Shoaib Akram, Tariq Hafeez, Manu Bhardwaj, Ziauddin, etc. – all resulted in "delete" or "merge"), and many discussions outside AFD have also confirmed that the NCRIC bar is too low and unreliable in it's purpose of predicting GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant as per brightline criteria these articles are acceptable. People choosing to ignore brightline criteria isn't my decision. Once again, please stop picking holes in what I'm saying. Bobo. 16:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that he meets WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's strange to note that CreativeNorth's article creations which have been inexplicably deleted have been edited even less than mine have over the years! Goes to show how little the members of this project care for improving the project. I'm at last feeling comforted by that. Bobo. 10:16, 12 December 2020 (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.