From 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 no consensus. Two competing policies being at war with each other can't be solved out at AfD. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Alfred Ackroyd (New Zealand cricketer)

Alfred Ackroyd (New Zealand cricketer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many cricket articles that fail WP:GNG big time. After four other AfDs on cricket players I started ended all in "redirect" ( 1 2 3), 4), I redirected some other articles with the same lack of individual notability. This was reverted for being "pointy disruption" by the article creator. So I'll nominate them for AfD instead, with no objection from my side to either deletion or redirection. I nominate them individually, as it may turn out that, despite my searches for sources, some of these can be shown to be actually notable. Fram ( talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:NCRIC. The nom made a recent failed RfC to remove the said notability requirements. Since then, they have tried to circumnavigate this by making mass redirects instead. The nom has said that they " have no beef with Lugnuts", however following their failed RfC, have seemingly gone out of their way to target artciles I've worked on. Another RfC on sporting articles closed with the comments "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". And yet, there have been 25+ AfDs logged by Fram in a 15/20 minute window, indicating no WP:BEFORE was used. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
There's no qualms in creating them, as they meet the notability criteria, which you tried and failed to get rid of. And this is the issue. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 19:13, 30 January 2021 (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.
From 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 no consensus. Two competing policies being at war with each other can't be solved out at AfD. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Alfred Ackroyd (New Zealand cricketer)

Alfred Ackroyd (New Zealand cricketer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many cricket articles that fail WP:GNG big time. After four other AfDs on cricket players I started ended all in "redirect" ( 1 2 3), 4), I redirected some other articles with the same lack of individual notability. This was reverted for being "pointy disruption" by the article creator. So I'll nominate them for AfD instead, with no objection from my side to either deletion or redirection. I nominate them individually, as it may turn out that, despite my searches for sources, some of these can be shown to be actually notable. Fram ( talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:NCRIC. The nom made a recent failed RfC to remove the said notability requirements. Since then, they have tried to circumnavigate this by making mass redirects instead. The nom has said that they " have no beef with Lugnuts", however following their failed RfC, have seemingly gone out of their way to target artciles I've worked on. Another RfC on sporting articles closed with the comments "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". And yet, there have been 25+ AfDs logged by Fram in a 15/20 minute window, indicating no WP:BEFORE was used. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
There's no qualms in creating them, as they meet the notability criteria, which you tried and failed to get rid of. And this is the issue. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 19:13, 30 January 2021 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook