- 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 redirect to
List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. There seems to be some misunderstanding of our notability guidelines here.
WP:GNG is a basic standard for notability; meeting it is sufficient, in and of itself, for inclusion. There are some subject-specific notability guidelines that are explicitly alternatives to WP:GNG;
WP:PROF is one such. Meeting such a guideline is enough, in and of itself, to demonstrate notability.
WP:NCRIC is not such an alternative;
WP:NSPORTS states explicitly that standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline
. In other words, meeting NCRIC is not, in and of itself, demonstration of notability. Therefore, there is clear consensus here that the subject is not notable; redirecting as a reasonable search term, as some have suggested.
Vanamonde (
Talk) 02:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Dean Dass
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dean Dass ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although the subject squeaks by WP:NCRIC with that List A appearance, he does not meet WP:GNG, which is still required for subjects whose notability falls under WP:NSPORTS. There are simply no sources that go into any depth about him anywhere that I could find (hell, there aren't even any that mention him in passing, aside from the exhaustively-complete stats database Cricket Archive).
He appeared in exactly one game that meets the NCRIC guideline and then apparently never did anything else of note in his rather limited "career". He didn't even really play, according to the article: "He did not bat or bowl during the match." It's been 18 years - let's face it, he's not going to play any more cricket, and he's not going to become any more notable. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - Please familiarize yourself with WP:N - it clearly states that an article has to meet either GNG - a random, woolly, POV-biased, guideline - or a subject-specific guideline. You have conclusively claimed your placing on AfD is null and void as soon as you have done it by noting that he, in fact, did play. There is no such thing as "squeaking" past a guideline - and if you wish to alter this guideline yourself in a way that would affect all sports, please suggest how you would do so, or better still, do so in the appropriate places. Bobo . 08:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - how has it taken you over 11 years to "find" this article and decide it doesn't suit your randomly made up standards, by the way? I'm suspicious. As for our use of the "exhaustively complete" CA database, please indicate to us a secondary source we could use which would fit your liking. Bobo . 08:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Probably the same way I did—this article is top of the list of Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009, and clicking on it led me to this AfD. Either way I'm not sure what your "suspicions" have to do with this AfD; you seem to be needlessly personalizing an editorial issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Bobo192 is the editor needing familiarisation with WP:N. It says an article is presumed notable if it meets the subject-specific guideline. A presumption is not a guarantee. In this case there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, which is a powerful indication of non-notability and suffices to rebut the weak presumption of notability arising from a single first-class appearance. The nomination is valid and correct, and I agree with it. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Weak notability" is still notability. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use, and demonstrate how they would be more suitably "reliable" to come to your standards, if the ones we have used for the last 15 years do not fit your liking.
Bobo
. 09:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Significant coverage in reliable sources. Not just stats.—
Mkativerata (
talk) 09:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I repeat. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use.
Bobo
. 09:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Newspaper articles that discuss Dass and his career are an obvious example.— Mkativerata ( talk) 09:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I repeat. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use.
Bobo
. 09:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Significant coverage in reliable sources. Not just stats.—
Mkativerata (
talk) 09:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Weak notability" is still notability. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use, and demonstrate how they would be more suitably "reliable" to come to your standards, if the ones we have used for the last 15 years do not fit your liking.
Bobo
. 09:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment
He didn't even really play, according to the article: "He did not bat or bowl during the match."
I've not checked the scorecard, but if, as the article claims, he was a wicketkeeper, then he will have been the most involved player in the game whilst his team was fielding. As to the 11 year gap in the nomination, I'm not aware of any limit on this, particularly for such stubby articles that have no incoming links that someone is unlikely to stumble upon by chance. Spike 'em ( talk) 09:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Probably delete - or redirect to a suitable list if it were created (there is no List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players) - I can find passing mentions, but nothing in depth, at Luton Today, Radlett CC, Northants Telegraph and the WH Times. It's possible that articles exist that deal with Dass in a little more depth in the local press - I know, for example, that it's possible to find fairly in depth coverage of Norfolk players, although that would tend to be those who have played much more frequently for the county side than Dass did for Bedfordshire. Given the lack of sources beyond statistical ones (there is also a CricInfo entry with less information than at CricketArchive) and the limited Minor Counties career he had, I'm minded to delete here. Note that I would have no objection to a solely Minor Counties player with substantial coverage in reliable sources being included in the encyclopaedia - there are plenty that I think could be found - and would have no issue with the article being recreated at some point in the future if substantial sources, perhaps from a local Bedfordshire newspaper from 2001, were to be discovered. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to suitable list as per BST.
WP:N states :
This [passing notablity guideline] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.
I see this as being a suitable case to merge a number of short articles into a longer list of related topics. Category:Bedfordshire cricketers and its sub-cat contains 240 players, though not all of them played List A cricket for them. Spike 'em ( talk) 12:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- If we do this we will have to make a complete list - say of "Foo cricketers", not just the odd name based on other users' boredom. In the past when we have created these pages based on randomly deleted articles, people have added only the names which people have put up for AfD, and these articles have been swiftly dealt with.
Bobo
. 13:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm going through the 27 List-A games (as listed on CricketArchive) played by Bedfordshire to see how many players this should encompass.
Spike 'em (
talk) 13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Half of which I have no doubt I created... why do I get the feeling I'm being victimized again..?
Bobo
. 13:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- There are 95 players who have played List A cricket for Bedfordshire, with just under half (43) playing a single game for them. Cricket archive only shows initials (not forenames) on scorecards, so may take a while to determine who is who on here. I'm certainly not suggesting information is deleted, but a list serves the purpose better than a set of microstubs that no-one maintains.
Spike 'em (
talk) 14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- 28 of the 43 single appearances for Beds made no other top-flight appearances (according to WP); I'd say most of these should be redirected to a list. There is also at least 1 England international amongst the 43.
Spike 'em (
talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'd say that was reasonable. In cases where there are lots and lots of apps in minor counties matches there may be more of a case for a stand alone article, depending on sources. At the same time, there may be people with 2 or 3 LA apps who played few other matches and about whom we only have limited biographical information who might be better off being redirected. But those can be dealt with as required.
- Any chance that you could create the list at some point?
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 17:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- So hang on now... we've gone from discussing the eligibility of someone who clearly passes CRIN, to discussing the eligibility of people who are "a little bit more eligible than others", despite not being eligible by CRIN? Well if that's not hypocrisy.... One moment you're painting me out like an arch-inclusionist because I'm sticking to one rule, the next you're kicking my "arch-inclusionism" aside by inventing another, which will be completely and entirely based on nothing but POV?
Bobo
. 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Notability is a matter of judgement, not something which is always black or white. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- So tell me, which Bedfordshire cricketers who have not made List A appearances would be allowed under this rule?
Bobo
. 18:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not a clue, but I know that there are two Norfolk cricketers with more than 100 minor counties appearances who never played a FC, LA or T20 match. I think there's a chance that I may be able to find enough sources about both in the EDP archives and other sources Blue Square Thing ( talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- So hang on now... we've gone from discussing the eligibility of someone who clearly passes CRIN, to discussing the eligibility of people who are "a little bit more eligible than others", despite not being eligible by CRIN? Well if that's not hypocrisy.... One moment you're painting me out like an arch-inclusionist because I'm sticking to one rule, the next you're kicking my "arch-inclusionism" aside by inventing another, which will be completely and entirely based on nothing but POV?
Bobo
. 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- 28 of the 43 single appearances for Beds made no other top-flight appearances (according to WP); I'd say most of these should be redirected to a list. There is also at least 1 England international amongst the 43.
Spike 'em (
talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- There are 95 players who have played List A cricket for Bedfordshire, with just under half (43) playing a single game for them. Cricket archive only shows initials (not forenames) on scorecards, so may take a while to determine who is who on here. I'm certainly not suggesting information is deleted, but a list serves the purpose better than a set of microstubs that no-one maintains.
Spike 'em (
talk) 14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Half of which I have no doubt I created... why do I get the feeling I'm being victimized again..?
Bobo
. 13:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm going through the 27 List-A games (as listed on CricketArchive) played by Bedfordshire to see how many players this should encompass.
Spike 'em (
talk) 13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- If we do this we will have to make a complete list - say of "Foo cricketers", not just the odd name based on other users' boredom. In the past when we have created these pages based on randomly deleted articles, people have added only the names which people have put up for AfD, and these articles have been swiftly dealt with.
Bobo
. 13:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - While we're complaining about the lack of or suitability of certain sources and/or external links, and pulling out random guidelines from nowhere, can someone please fix all the Test cricketers with zero references or external links? (There are seven alone in
Category:Zimbabwe Test cricketers, as a milestone). Not an attack by the way - this is a problem which has been around for at least the 15 years since I've been a member here. I'm just guessing that these Test cricketers attract more traffic than others.
Bobo
. 03:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just hope we do not get some of the editors who have commented on the most recent Kennedy article up for deletion, since there it was argued that existing for 15 years should default an article to notability. I guess some people do not realize that 15 years ago the article creation process was less controlled than it is now, and Wikipedia has never had enough people doing deep research to monitor new articles. The article creation process we have now with submissions for creation helps, but since we do not require people to go that route, we get lots of submissions that do not come close to meeting inclusion criteria. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete If he meets the cricket notability guidelines they are clearly flawed. We should be able to know more information about someone who played so recently. One of Wikipedia's biggest flaws is inclusion of articles on clearly non-notable sports people who have never received any significant coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly meets WP:CRIN by playing at the highest domestic level. Those who go through the same routine of attempting to force through change on CRIC A). Don't even contribute to the project. B). Have no idea about cricket. The project already reached a consensus to delete articles on players where only their initials were known, resulting in the deletion of hundreds of articles. StickyWicket ( talk) 08:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ironically, as I have stated above, the article title was under initials only for a year and a half before this information was added to CA. Where was everyone back then to complain..? If this individual had reached CRIN for the first time today, even if only his initials were available, this conversation would not be happening... Bobo . 08:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect per Blue Square Thing above. Research provides no significant coverage. What is provided clearly does not "[address] the topic directly and in detail. Directly, yes, but in detail: no. Further Google searches reveal no additional information. How long the article has existed is irrelevant; its notability is being discussed here and now. Harrias talk 10:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - what is "further detail"? A birthdate? If this is the only reason articles are deleted, then heaven help the rest of the project. If extraneous information was added, then this would be seen as unnecessary... Perhaps we just delete every article which only has a link to CI and/or CA... Perhaps, as I've stated above, we delete every Test cricketer article who doesn't have any external links and/or references added. Bobo . 10:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect per Blue Square Thing. This RfC has already confirmed that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Dee 03 12:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like this fails the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. Could be redirected to a Bedfordshire list if there is one, as mentioned above. No Great Shaker ( talk) 23:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Meets
WP:V. --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned! 10:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've added a fourth source to the article -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect per Blue Square Thing. As pointed out above, WP:CRIN defers to the notability guideline- not vice versa- and if CRIN allows the unrestrained creation of these virtually empty microstubs then the fault is with CRIN and not our deletion procedures. Reyk YO! 12:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- If the fault is with CRIN then why, in the last 15 years, has nobody been able to come up with a logical alternative that is universally applicable?
Bobo
. 14:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- They have.
WP:GNG.
Harrias
talk 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- No. Please don't distract from my question once again. Why has nobody come up with adaptations to CRIN - which people have attempted to do for the last 15 years, and still have failed to do?
Bobo
. 15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Because it is impossible to have a bright-line criteria which accurately predicts which subjects will be notable and which will not. The best we can do is provide a guide which will be right 99% of the time, and accept that in the other 1% of cases, that prediction will be wrong.
Harrias
talk 15:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- The beauty of having brightline criteria is exactly that. There is no "will be".
Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Oh but, wait, I forgot, WP:N is only a guideline...
Bobo
. 15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, poor semantics; I should have said "which subjects are notable and which are not". Aside from that, my point stands. Harrias talk 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- The beauty of having brightline criteria is exactly that. There is no "will be".
Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Oh but, wait, I forgot, WP:N is only a guideline...
Bobo
. 15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Because it is impossible to have a bright-line criteria which accurately predicts which subjects will be notable and which will not. The best we can do is provide a guide which will be right 99% of the time, and accept that in the other 1% of cases, that prediction will be wrong.
Harrias
talk 15:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- No. Please don't distract from my question once again. Why has nobody come up with adaptations to CRIN - which people have attempted to do for the last 15 years, and still have failed to do?
Bobo
. 15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- They have.
WP:GNG.
Harrias
talk 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- If the fault is with CRIN then why, in the last 15 years, has nobody been able to come up with a logical alternative that is universally applicable?
Bobo
. 14:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect per Blue Square Thing. Sadly I can't find substantial coverage of this cricketer in any sources. Merging to a list would be a comfortable alternative, but as Bobo192 has pointed out these lists assmebled after AfDs are often poorly maintained. Ajpolino ( talk) 18:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Really non-notable other than by the most pedantic criteria imaginable. RobinCarmody ( talk) 00:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. Despite the claims of the article creator, meeting WP:NCRIC only gives presumed notability, not guaranteed. The important information (that Dass played a List A match for Bedfordshire) will be retained, just as a list entry, not a stub. – Tera tix ₵ 04:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW - I've added an entry for him on the List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players that Spike created. At some point the rest of that list will get filled out. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 13:21, 9 August 2019 (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 redirect to
List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. There seems to be some misunderstanding of our notability guidelines here.
WP:GNG is a basic standard for notability; meeting it is sufficient, in and of itself, for inclusion. There are some subject-specific notability guidelines that are explicitly alternatives to WP:GNG;
WP:PROF is one such. Meeting such a guideline is enough, in and of itself, to demonstrate notability.
WP:NCRIC is not such an alternative;
WP:NSPORTS states explicitly that standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline
. In other words, meeting NCRIC is not, in and of itself, demonstration of notability. Therefore, there is clear consensus here that the subject is not notable; redirecting as a reasonable search term, as some have suggested.
Vanamonde (
Talk) 02:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Dean Dass
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dean Dass ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although the subject squeaks by WP:NCRIC with that List A appearance, he does not meet WP:GNG, which is still required for subjects whose notability falls under WP:NSPORTS. There are simply no sources that go into any depth about him anywhere that I could find (hell, there aren't even any that mention him in passing, aside from the exhaustively-complete stats database Cricket Archive).
He appeared in exactly one game that meets the NCRIC guideline and then apparently never did anything else of note in his rather limited "career". He didn't even really play, according to the article: "He did not bat or bowl during the match." It's been 18 years - let's face it, he's not going to play any more cricket, and he's not going to become any more notable. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - Please familiarize yourself with WP:N - it clearly states that an article has to meet either GNG - a random, woolly, POV-biased, guideline - or a subject-specific guideline. You have conclusively claimed your placing on AfD is null and void as soon as you have done it by noting that he, in fact, did play. There is no such thing as "squeaking" past a guideline - and if you wish to alter this guideline yourself in a way that would affect all sports, please suggest how you would do so, or better still, do so in the appropriate places. Bobo . 08:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - how has it taken you over 11 years to "find" this article and decide it doesn't suit your randomly made up standards, by the way? I'm suspicious. As for our use of the "exhaustively complete" CA database, please indicate to us a secondary source we could use which would fit your liking. Bobo . 08:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Probably the same way I did—this article is top of the list of Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009, and clicking on it led me to this AfD. Either way I'm not sure what your "suspicions" have to do with this AfD; you seem to be needlessly personalizing an editorial issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Bobo192 is the editor needing familiarisation with WP:N. It says an article is presumed notable if it meets the subject-specific guideline. A presumption is not a guarantee. In this case there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, which is a powerful indication of non-notability and suffices to rebut the weak presumption of notability arising from a single first-class appearance. The nomination is valid and correct, and I agree with it. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Weak notability" is still notability. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use, and demonstrate how they would be more suitably "reliable" to come to your standards, if the ones we have used for the last 15 years do not fit your liking.
Bobo
. 09:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Significant coverage in reliable sources. Not just stats.—
Mkativerata (
talk) 09:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I repeat. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use.
Bobo
. 09:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Newspaper articles that discuss Dass and his career are an obvious example.— Mkativerata ( talk) 09:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I repeat. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use.
Bobo
. 09:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Significant coverage in reliable sources. Not just stats.—
Mkativerata (
talk) 09:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Weak notability" is still notability. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use, and demonstrate how they would be more suitably "reliable" to come to your standards, if the ones we have used for the last 15 years do not fit your liking.
Bobo
. 09:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment
He didn't even really play, according to the article: "He did not bat or bowl during the match."
I've not checked the scorecard, but if, as the article claims, he was a wicketkeeper, then he will have been the most involved player in the game whilst his team was fielding. As to the 11 year gap in the nomination, I'm not aware of any limit on this, particularly for such stubby articles that have no incoming links that someone is unlikely to stumble upon by chance. Spike 'em ( talk) 09:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Probably delete - or redirect to a suitable list if it were created (there is no List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players) - I can find passing mentions, but nothing in depth, at Luton Today, Radlett CC, Northants Telegraph and the WH Times. It's possible that articles exist that deal with Dass in a little more depth in the local press - I know, for example, that it's possible to find fairly in depth coverage of Norfolk players, although that would tend to be those who have played much more frequently for the county side than Dass did for Bedfordshire. Given the lack of sources beyond statistical ones (there is also a CricInfo entry with less information than at CricketArchive) and the limited Minor Counties career he had, I'm minded to delete here. Note that I would have no objection to a solely Minor Counties player with substantial coverage in reliable sources being included in the encyclopaedia - there are plenty that I think could be found - and would have no issue with the article being recreated at some point in the future if substantial sources, perhaps from a local Bedfordshire newspaper from 2001, were to be discovered. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to suitable list as per BST.
WP:N states :
This [passing notablity guideline] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.
I see this as being a suitable case to merge a number of short articles into a longer list of related topics. Category:Bedfordshire cricketers and its sub-cat contains 240 players, though not all of them played List A cricket for them. Spike 'em ( talk) 12:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- If we do this we will have to make a complete list - say of "Foo cricketers", not just the odd name based on other users' boredom. In the past when we have created these pages based on randomly deleted articles, people have added only the names which people have put up for AfD, and these articles have been swiftly dealt with.
Bobo
. 13:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm going through the 27 List-A games (as listed on CricketArchive) played by Bedfordshire to see how many players this should encompass.
Spike 'em (
talk) 13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Half of which I have no doubt I created... why do I get the feeling I'm being victimized again..?
Bobo
. 13:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- There are 95 players who have played List A cricket for Bedfordshire, with just under half (43) playing a single game for them. Cricket archive only shows initials (not forenames) on scorecards, so may take a while to determine who is who on here. I'm certainly not suggesting information is deleted, but a list serves the purpose better than a set of microstubs that no-one maintains.
Spike 'em (
talk) 14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- 28 of the 43 single appearances for Beds made no other top-flight appearances (according to WP); I'd say most of these should be redirected to a list. There is also at least 1 England international amongst the 43.
Spike 'em (
talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'd say that was reasonable. In cases where there are lots and lots of apps in minor counties matches there may be more of a case for a stand alone article, depending on sources. At the same time, there may be people with 2 or 3 LA apps who played few other matches and about whom we only have limited biographical information who might be better off being redirected. But those can be dealt with as required.
- Any chance that you could create the list at some point?
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 17:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- So hang on now... we've gone from discussing the eligibility of someone who clearly passes CRIN, to discussing the eligibility of people who are "a little bit more eligible than others", despite not being eligible by CRIN? Well if that's not hypocrisy.... One moment you're painting me out like an arch-inclusionist because I'm sticking to one rule, the next you're kicking my "arch-inclusionism" aside by inventing another, which will be completely and entirely based on nothing but POV?
Bobo
. 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Notability is a matter of judgement, not something which is always black or white. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- So tell me, which Bedfordshire cricketers who have not made List A appearances would be allowed under this rule?
Bobo
. 18:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not a clue, but I know that there are two Norfolk cricketers with more than 100 minor counties appearances who never played a FC, LA or T20 match. I think there's a chance that I may be able to find enough sources about both in the EDP archives and other sources Blue Square Thing ( talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- So hang on now... we've gone from discussing the eligibility of someone who clearly passes CRIN, to discussing the eligibility of people who are "a little bit more eligible than others", despite not being eligible by CRIN? Well if that's not hypocrisy.... One moment you're painting me out like an arch-inclusionist because I'm sticking to one rule, the next you're kicking my "arch-inclusionism" aside by inventing another, which will be completely and entirely based on nothing but POV?
Bobo
. 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- 28 of the 43 single appearances for Beds made no other top-flight appearances (according to WP); I'd say most of these should be redirected to a list. There is also at least 1 England international amongst the 43.
Spike 'em (
talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- There are 95 players who have played List A cricket for Bedfordshire, with just under half (43) playing a single game for them. Cricket archive only shows initials (not forenames) on scorecards, so may take a while to determine who is who on here. I'm certainly not suggesting information is deleted, but a list serves the purpose better than a set of microstubs that no-one maintains.
Spike 'em (
talk) 14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Half of which I have no doubt I created... why do I get the feeling I'm being victimized again..?
Bobo
. 13:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm going through the 27 List-A games (as listed on CricketArchive) played by Bedfordshire to see how many players this should encompass.
Spike 'em (
talk) 13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- If we do this we will have to make a complete list - say of "Foo cricketers", not just the odd name based on other users' boredom. In the past when we have created these pages based on randomly deleted articles, people have added only the names which people have put up for AfD, and these articles have been swiftly dealt with.
Bobo
. 13:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - While we're complaining about the lack of or suitability of certain sources and/or external links, and pulling out random guidelines from nowhere, can someone please fix all the Test cricketers with zero references or external links? (There are seven alone in
Category:Zimbabwe Test cricketers, as a milestone). Not an attack by the way - this is a problem which has been around for at least the 15 years since I've been a member here. I'm just guessing that these Test cricketers attract more traffic than others.
Bobo
. 03:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just hope we do not get some of the editors who have commented on the most recent Kennedy article up for deletion, since there it was argued that existing for 15 years should default an article to notability. I guess some people do not realize that 15 years ago the article creation process was less controlled than it is now, and Wikipedia has never had enough people doing deep research to monitor new articles. The article creation process we have now with submissions for creation helps, but since we do not require people to go that route, we get lots of submissions that do not come close to meeting inclusion criteria. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete If he meets the cricket notability guidelines they are clearly flawed. We should be able to know more information about someone who played so recently. One of Wikipedia's biggest flaws is inclusion of articles on clearly non-notable sports people who have never received any significant coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly meets WP:CRIN by playing at the highest domestic level. Those who go through the same routine of attempting to force through change on CRIC A). Don't even contribute to the project. B). Have no idea about cricket. The project already reached a consensus to delete articles on players where only their initials were known, resulting in the deletion of hundreds of articles. StickyWicket ( talk) 08:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ironically, as I have stated above, the article title was under initials only for a year and a half before this information was added to CA. Where was everyone back then to complain..? If this individual had reached CRIN for the first time today, even if only his initials were available, this conversation would not be happening... Bobo . 08:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect per Blue Square Thing above. Research provides no significant coverage. What is provided clearly does not "[address] the topic directly and in detail. Directly, yes, but in detail: no. Further Google searches reveal no additional information. How long the article has existed is irrelevant; its notability is being discussed here and now. Harrias talk 10:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - what is "further detail"? A birthdate? If this is the only reason articles are deleted, then heaven help the rest of the project. If extraneous information was added, then this would be seen as unnecessary... Perhaps we just delete every article which only has a link to CI and/or CA... Perhaps, as I've stated above, we delete every Test cricketer article who doesn't have any external links and/or references added. Bobo . 10:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect per Blue Square Thing. This RfC has already confirmed that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Dee 03 12:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like this fails the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. Could be redirected to a Bedfordshire list if there is one, as mentioned above. No Great Shaker ( talk) 23:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Meets
WP:V. --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned! 10:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've added a fourth source to the article -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 12:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect per Blue Square Thing. As pointed out above, WP:CRIN defers to the notability guideline- not vice versa- and if CRIN allows the unrestrained creation of these virtually empty microstubs then the fault is with CRIN and not our deletion procedures. Reyk YO! 12:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- If the fault is with CRIN then why, in the last 15 years, has nobody been able to come up with a logical alternative that is universally applicable?
Bobo
. 14:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- They have.
WP:GNG.
Harrias
talk 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- No. Please don't distract from my question once again. Why has nobody come up with adaptations to CRIN - which people have attempted to do for the last 15 years, and still have failed to do?
Bobo
. 15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Because it is impossible to have a bright-line criteria which accurately predicts which subjects will be notable and which will not. The best we can do is provide a guide which will be right 99% of the time, and accept that in the other 1% of cases, that prediction will be wrong.
Harrias
talk 15:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- The beauty of having brightline criteria is exactly that. There is no "will be".
Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Oh but, wait, I forgot, WP:N is only a guideline...
Bobo
. 15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, poor semantics; I should have said "which subjects are notable and which are not". Aside from that, my point stands. Harrias talk 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- The beauty of having brightline criteria is exactly that. There is no "will be".
Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Oh but, wait, I forgot, WP:N is only a guideline...
Bobo
. 15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Because it is impossible to have a bright-line criteria which accurately predicts which subjects will be notable and which will not. The best we can do is provide a guide which will be right 99% of the time, and accept that in the other 1% of cases, that prediction will be wrong.
Harrias
talk 15:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- No. Please don't distract from my question once again. Why has nobody come up with adaptations to CRIN - which people have attempted to do for the last 15 years, and still have failed to do?
Bobo
. 15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- They have.
WP:GNG.
Harrias
talk 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- If the fault is with CRIN then why, in the last 15 years, has nobody been able to come up with a logical alternative that is universally applicable?
Bobo
. 14:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect per Blue Square Thing. Sadly I can't find substantial coverage of this cricketer in any sources. Merging to a list would be a comfortable alternative, but as Bobo192 has pointed out these lists assmebled after AfDs are often poorly maintained. Ajpolino ( talk) 18:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Really non-notable other than by the most pedantic criteria imaginable. RobinCarmody ( talk) 00:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. Despite the claims of the article creator, meeting WP:NCRIC only gives presumed notability, not guaranteed. The important information (that Dass played a List A match for Bedfordshire) will be retained, just as a list entry, not a stub. – Tera tix ₵ 04:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW - I've added an entry for him on the List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players that Spike created. At some point the rest of that list will get filled out. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 13:21, 9 August 2019 (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.