- 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 keep. North America 1000 19:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- List of International cricket families ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Fails WP:VERIFY as no citations have been provided since the refimprove template was added in 2010. It is therefore an unreliable article. It is verging on WP:TRIVIA and may not be up-to-date. Jack | talk page 14:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment These aren't policy reasons to delete either. That the page isn't verified does not mean it is impossible to verify it. The question is whether the subject is notable, and like it or not, there is an argument to be made from independent secondary sources that the topic of families/dynasties in cricket is a notable topic.
JMWt (
talk) 15:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Reply. If it is possible to verify, then why hasn't it been verified? The refimprove tag has been there since 2010 and some of the people named are subject to
WP:BLP so verification is imperative by policy. The lack of citations in six years means that it fails
WP:VERIFY and must be removed as it potentially breaches
WP:BLP, inter alia.
Jack |
talk page 15:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. Sorry, we're judging the notability of the topic, not how the page is currently written.
JMWt (
talk) 15:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, with your 2,000 edits in 18 months you are an expert on AfD. There is much more to it than notability. I suggest you read
WP:AFD and its sub-pages and associated pages to get the full picture. Failing
WP:VERIFY is a major issue in any article especially one in which
WP:BLP is relevant. And I just looked at your talk page which does not impress me, given your rudeness to one of
the most senior editors here who was trying to help you. Any rudeness in the AfD pages and it will be taken further. Okay?
Jack |
talk page 15:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Think whatever you like, the fact is that notability is about the topic not the current state of the page. Also WP:NOTBATTLE. JMWt ( talk) 15:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, with your 2,000 edits in 18 months you are an expert on AfD. There is much more to it than notability. I suggest you read
WP:AFD and its sub-pages and associated pages to get the full picture. Failing
WP:VERIFY is a major issue in any article especially one in which
WP:BLP is relevant. And I just looked at your talk page which does not impress me, given your rudeness to one of
the most senior editors here who was trying to help you. Any rudeness in the AfD pages and it will be taken further. Okay?
Jack |
talk page 15:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. Sorry, we're judging the notability of the topic, not how the page is currently written.
JMWt (
talk) 15:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Reply. If it is possible to verify, then why hasn't it been verified? The refimprove tag has been there since 2010 and some of the people named are subject to
WP:BLP so verification is imperative by policy. The lack of citations in six years means that it fails
WP:VERIFY and must be removed as it potentially breaches
WP:BLP, inter alia.
Jack |
talk page 15:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment. There are MANY reasons why an article may be deleted. WP:Notability is certainly significant but so are WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and others. I suggest you study Category:Wikipedia content policies and its sub-cats to increase your knowledge and understanding of AfD and content policies. Please stop trying to assert that AfD is only about notability. Jack | talk page 16:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- So to be absolutely clear, your policy reason for delete is that the topic is impossible to verify. It is impossible to verify that there are families which contain several cricketers. That's just wrong on a pretty much base level. I'm not getting into a personal fight with you, I am clearly trying to discuss policy reasons for or against the AfD. For me, your policy reasons for delete are weak. It doesn't persuade you, but meh, this isn't about you. JMWt ( talk) 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - notable topic, and paralleled by several other lists on Wikipedia - e.g. List of family relations in American football. St Anselm ( talk) 19:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe the topic is notable, and supported by the other associated family lists on Wikipedia. Perry Middlemiss ( talk) 04:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There have been several books written on cricket families, so this is definitely a notable topic. I'm sure sources can be found. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Request withdrawn by nom. WP:CONSENSUS is clearly going to be keep (perhaps unanimously so). Jack | talk page 07:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. North America 1000 19:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- List of International cricket families ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Fails WP:VERIFY as no citations have been provided since the refimprove template was added in 2010. It is therefore an unreliable article. It is verging on WP:TRIVIA and may not be up-to-date. Jack | talk page 14:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment These aren't policy reasons to delete either. That the page isn't verified does not mean it is impossible to verify it. The question is whether the subject is notable, and like it or not, there is an argument to be made from independent secondary sources that the topic of families/dynasties in cricket is a notable topic.
JMWt (
talk) 15:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Reply. If it is possible to verify, then why hasn't it been verified? The refimprove tag has been there since 2010 and some of the people named are subject to
WP:BLP so verification is imperative by policy. The lack of citations in six years means that it fails
WP:VERIFY and must be removed as it potentially breaches
WP:BLP, inter alia.
Jack |
talk page 15:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. Sorry, we're judging the notability of the topic, not how the page is currently written.
JMWt (
talk) 15:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, with your 2,000 edits in 18 months you are an expert on AfD. There is much more to it than notability. I suggest you read
WP:AFD and its sub-pages and associated pages to get the full picture. Failing
WP:VERIFY is a major issue in any article especially one in which
WP:BLP is relevant. And I just looked at your talk page which does not impress me, given your rudeness to one of
the most senior editors here who was trying to help you. Any rudeness in the AfD pages and it will be taken further. Okay?
Jack |
talk page 15:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Think whatever you like, the fact is that notability is about the topic not the current state of the page. Also WP:NOTBATTLE. JMWt ( talk) 15:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, with your 2,000 edits in 18 months you are an expert on AfD. There is much more to it than notability. I suggest you read
WP:AFD and its sub-pages and associated pages to get the full picture. Failing
WP:VERIFY is a major issue in any article especially one in which
WP:BLP is relevant. And I just looked at your talk page which does not impress me, given your rudeness to one of
the most senior editors here who was trying to help you. Any rudeness in the AfD pages and it will be taken further. Okay?
Jack |
talk page 15:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. Sorry, we're judging the notability of the topic, not how the page is currently written.
JMWt (
talk) 15:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Reply. If it is possible to verify, then why hasn't it been verified? The refimprove tag has been there since 2010 and some of the people named are subject to
WP:BLP so verification is imperative by policy. The lack of citations in six years means that it fails
WP:VERIFY and must be removed as it potentially breaches
WP:BLP, inter alia.
Jack |
talk page 15:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment. There are MANY reasons why an article may be deleted. WP:Notability is certainly significant but so are WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and others. I suggest you study Category:Wikipedia content policies and its sub-cats to increase your knowledge and understanding of AfD and content policies. Please stop trying to assert that AfD is only about notability. Jack | talk page 16:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- So to be absolutely clear, your policy reason for delete is that the topic is impossible to verify. It is impossible to verify that there are families which contain several cricketers. That's just wrong on a pretty much base level. I'm not getting into a personal fight with you, I am clearly trying to discuss policy reasons for or against the AfD. For me, your policy reasons for delete are weak. It doesn't persuade you, but meh, this isn't about you. JMWt ( talk) 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - notable topic, and paralleled by several other lists on Wikipedia - e.g. List of family relations in American football. St Anselm ( talk) 19:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe the topic is notable, and supported by the other associated family lists on Wikipedia. Perry Middlemiss ( talk) 04:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There have been several books written on cricket families, so this is definitely a notable topic. I'm sure sources can be found. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Request withdrawn by nom. WP:CONSENSUS is clearly going to be keep (perhaps unanimously so). Jack | talk page 07:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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.