Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jono Dean

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 keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jono Dean[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cricketer who fails WP:CRIN as has not played at first-class, List A or Twenty20 level. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PM's XI game in which he played was against a National Team (West Indies) falls within required definition of 'major cricket'. The definition uses the word "includes' not 'exclusive to' first-class, List A or Twenty20, then adds: "Historically, major cricket includes first-class, List A, single wicket and other forms in which players and/or teams of a recognised high standard are taking part." The current West Indies may not be the highest ever standard team from that country but the team they selected for teh PM's match was close to their highest standard fro that form of the game. Other measures of notability- Subsequent reported praise in national papers by former Test captain Ponting. Significant presence in national media after the game. Is captain of the Premier Team in ACT. Has scored second highest run total in ACT cricket history.121.127.197.101 (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the deprodder, I've been thinking over this one for a couple of days, because it isn't clear either way. I don't really think the "other forms" comment is really meant for modern "exhibition games", which is what the PM's XI is. And hence, by the WP:CRIN guideline, he isn't notable. But he's from Canberra. They simply don't have any CRIN-compliant "major cricket" played there any more. The Canberra Comets, which Dean captains, play in the 2nd level Futures League, and that is the highest level of cricket he can play in, without moving. Every other player in that league, if they perform well, could represent their state at List-A or First-Class level. If he lived anywhere else in the world, he'd easily be good enough to play in the ICC World Cup Qualifiers or equivalent. Sure, he could move to Sydney or anywhere else in Australia, but there isn't much money at the lower end of the cricketing tree, so without knowing his family/work situation, this may or may not be possible (I admit this lack of knowledge about him outside of cricket could be considered part of a delete argument). So, he's been selected in a national representative (but not a "major cricket" game, performed very well in it and received a lot of coverage for it. Is that enough for WP:GNG, or is that just WP:BLP1E? He's been 12th man for the PMs XI before, back in 2008, and he's been a supplementary player for the Perth Scorchers and the Melbourne Renegades, but didn't get a game. After all that, I think this is a Weak Keep, based on the WP:GNG coverage of his 5,000 runs, 51 for the PM XI and 300 in a day, ruling out BLP1E. Hopefully, he will get a chance next year with a BBL team and clear the CRIN hurdle, but as CRIN says, it is "merely rules of thumb" and "failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". The-Pope (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man is very famous in the sport and notable! Calqwatch (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So famous in the sport that he hasn't progessed to first-class level. There is precedent for deleting Prime Minister's XI/non-List A Canberra players here and here. Yes, playing for Canberra is the highest level of cricket in Canberra, but you could then compare it to Grade Cricket, we don't permit articles on grade cricketers. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CRIN and because of the above mentioned precedents. Jevansen (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The PM's XI match is used by the Australian selection panel as a testing ground for future test and Australian one day players. The game is always against national sides. It qualifies as "major cricket" as per the definition.NimbusWeb (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2013 (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.